SARPAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the instant appeal are that on 5/7/2013 Karu @ Rajpal with his wife Ruma Devi, his elder brother Satyapal and his brother-in-law Karan Singh (Sala) was going from his Sasural at Khetapur to his village at Tikra in a bullock cart which is also called Danlap. At around 7:00pm three persons riding upon a motorcycle came from behind and asked them to stop the bullock cart. As per the first information report lodged by Satyapal, three miscreants had a scuffle with Karu and Satyapal and when they were reluctant to stop the bullock cart one person sitting on the motorcycle fired with an intention to kill Karu with a country made pistol. The shot hit the left side of the chest of Karu. After having fired, the three miscreants ran away on the motorcycle towards Tikara. The three of them, it has been stated in the first information report, were not very aged persons. The first informant could not recognize them. He has stated in the first information report that the dead body of the deceased was lying at the spot and he had gone to get the first information report lodged and he had requested for an investigation. Upon the lodging of the first information report, investigation commenced. It has been stated by the P.W.-8 that during the investigation on 7/7/2013 on the statement having been given by Ruma, the case which was earlier registered under Sec. 302 IPC was also registered for Sec. 394 IPC. Thereafter, it has been stated that on 14/7/2013 when a call came from the first informant Satyapal on the CUG number of the police, the accused Sarpal was apprehended. At the time of his arrest, he had, as per the recovery memo prepared on 14/7/2013, taken the names of Ram Babu s/o Rameshwar and Mukesh son of Sompal Singh and had stated that these persons had accompanied him at the time when he had killed Karu @ Rajpal. During the arrest of the accused, a country made pistol was recovered and, therefore, the case had an added Sec. for investigation under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and since the Kadas (silver bangles) of Ruma were recovered, Sec. 411 IPC was also added.

(2.) Investigation thereafter commenced and the Police forwarded two separate charge sheets. In one charge sheet, charges were framed under Sec. 302, 394 and 411 IPC and in the other, charges were framed under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act.

(3.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandausi, Moradabad, framed charges against Sarpal under Ss. 302/34, 394, 411 of I.P.C. Similarly, on the very same day, by a separate chargesheet, Sarpal was charge-sheeted under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. When the accused had denied the charges, the case was put to trial. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution produced as many as ten prosecution witnesses.