STATE OF U P Vs. OM VEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal No. 219 of 1982, under Section 378 Cr.P.C., has been filed by State of Uttar Pradesh against accused respondent Om Veer son of Shish Ram, Daya Ram son of Latur, Sateshwar son of Ravi Dutt, Jai Bhagwan son of Som Dutt, all residents of village Nagwa, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.10.1981, delivered by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1981, under Section 302, 302/34 IPC challenging the same on the ground that it is against the law and facts of the case; it is perverse besides being recorded against the weight of evidence on record. The prayer has been made to set aside the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal and convict & sentence the accused respondents, according to law. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that earlier there was a dispute in between the parties with respect to sweet potatoes, which had resulted into marpeet. Parties were challaned. However, subsequently, they had entered into compromise and resolved their disputes. Apart from the aforesaid motive, 1-1/2 years back, in the marriage ceremony of the nephew of first informant Padam Singh (P.W. 1), accused respondent Om Veer in a drunken state assaulted the jeep driver. It infuriated the complainant as he felt insulted and turned out the accused. Om Veer from the marriage function. Due to this also, the respondents bore enmity.

(2.) On 19.2.1981, at about 09.00 p.m., 'ghurcharhi' ceremony was being performed for the marriage of Rampal, the nephew of the first informant. Rampal, Satish, Veer Singh, first informant, Balveer, Hari Singh and the ladies and children participated therein. Singing songs, they reached the temple situated at the outskirts of the village. They offered money on the deorhi in the temple. Except Dharamvir, Hari Singh, Balbir, Rampal, the bridegroom and his mother-in-laws' son Satish and the first informant Padam Singh (P.W. 1) each and every participants returned to their houses. There was a gas lantern with Dharamvir. The aforesaid persons then went to Samadhi. Rampal and Satish went inside the Samadhi while others remained standing there. When Rampal and Satish came out of the Samadhi, accused Daya Ram, Sateshwar, Jai Bhagwan and Omvir, who had already concealed themselves appeared abruptly. Daya Ram had a lathi. Omvir was armed with a single barrel gun. Sateshwar and Jai Bhagwan had country made pistols with them. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused respondent Daya Ram made exhortation that Satish was the son of Chajju Singh Daroga, who did pairvi, therefore, Satish and Rampal should get the taste of pairvi. Jai Bhagwan, Sateshwar and Omvir made intermittent gun fire which caused firearm injuries to Rampal and Satish. The first informant Padam Singh and others made alarm and attempted to apprehend the assailants but the assailants took to their heels with a threatening that they may receive the same fate as their children had received. Satish died at the spot. Rampal was, however, alive. He was taken to the baithak and was kept on a cot, but by then, he also succumbed to his injuries. The first informant Padam Singh (P.W. 1), leaving both the dead bodies there, proceeded for the police station on a tractor of Raj Singh, where he lodged oral report. On its basis, check report (Ex. Ka-1) was drawn by constable clerk Vinaypal at 00.15 a.m. on 20.2.1981. The case was registered in the general diary, the copy of which has been proved as Ex. Ka-2 on record. Narendra Pal Singh, S.I., was entrusted with the investigation. Inquest was prepared and the dead bodies were sent to mortuary alongwith necessary papers for post-mortem examination. Witnesses were interrogated. Site plan was prepared. After completing the investigation, I.O., Narendrapal Singh, submitted the charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-19).

(3.) The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against accused Omvir, Jai Bhagwan and Sateshwar while accused Daya Ram was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.