SUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against judgment and order dtd. 30/1/1984, passed by Sri Gopal Swarup Sinha, VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in Session Trial No.508 of 1982 (State Vs. Sumar and others), under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow, convicting and sentencing the accused appellants with rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) Wrapping the facts in brief, complainant Smt. Makana was sleeping alongwith her children in her house on 30/4/1981. On 30/4/1981 at about 5.30 a.m. when she heard the cries of her husband Mithan, who was sleeping in Khaliyan she immediately rushed toward the place of occurrence alongwith Sardar son of Shatau and Shazade son of Subhan who were present in their Khaliyan. She saw that Sumar @ Jhuri son of Molhay, Mangre son of Molhay, Sulaman son of Naththa were beating her husband by lathi and kanta, when they reached at the place of occurrence all of them took to their heels. Her husband sustained injuries in this incident and was carried to police station in unconscious state. She reached the police station and lodged FIR. On the basis of oral information FIR was lodged in police station against all the three persons under Sec. 308 IPC. Injured Mithan was sent for medical examination, but he expired in Balrampur Hospital on 30/4/1981 at about 1.30 p.m., thereafter, the case was converted into Sec. 304 IPC. The investigation was conducted by S.I. Shyamraj Yadav who recorded the statement of complainant and witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan, sent the dead body for autopsy on 1/5/1981, arrested the accused and after collecting sufficient evidence filed charge sheet against all the accused. Committal proceeding took place before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, who vide order dtd. 2/12/1982 committed all the three accused persons to the court of session. The court of session framed charges under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC, against Sumer @ Jhuri, Mangre and Suleman, read over and explained to them, who abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to prove the case prosecution adduced following witnesses:-