DEVENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KISHAN and his two sons-R atan Lal and Devendra stood their trial on charges under section 302 read with section 34 IPC in S.T. No. 490 of 78 before the Sessions . Judge, Moradahad, KISHAN and Ratan Lal were acquitted and Devendra was convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 18-12-1978. He has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE deceased in the case one Nanhey was resident of Kanjari Sarai and the accused also lived in another portion of the same house. THE locations of their houses are shown in the site plan. On the North of this house and after a little lane or open space of land is a polish workshop, which according to the prosecution belonged to Nanhey and according to the defence to one Gupta Ji. THE occurrence is said to be of about 3.15 p.m. on 30-6-78. THE occurrence was alleged in the first information report in the form that the brother in law 'Sadhu' of the deceased Nanhey, namely, Pooran Lal had gone to see him and was sitting with the deceased in the northern polish workshop, Some noise was heard from the house of Nanhey, whereupon Nanhey went towards his house. A little later, noise of Nanhey was also heard, whereupon Pooran Lal, Rajendra, Ram Swarup and others rushed towards the house of Nanhey. Nanhey by that time was coming out of the house and was being_chased by Kishan and his two sons-Devendra and Ratan Lal. Devendra held a knife and Kishan held a hammer. THE three accused assaulted Nanhey with knife and Kishan also put the blows of hammer on the knife itself. In the meanwhile Om Prakash and Jagmohan sons of Nanhey also arrived but the accused made good their escape.

(3.) THE other evidence was of PW 3 Pooran Lal, PW 4 Smt. Phoolwati, widow of the injured PW 5 Rajendra, PW 6 Jagmohan Singh, and PW 9 Om Prakash. After considering the evidence of these persons as also other formal evidence mentioned above, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased was murdered by Devendra, who held knife. He did not consider the case proved against the other two accused and consequently he recorded the above mentioned order of acquittal for two.