GANPAT AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Accused Ganpat and Ratiya had been convicted on a charge under Sec. 307/34 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years by the then III Addl. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, vide his judgment and order dated 5.6.1979.

(2.) The prosecution case started on the basis of the first information report (Ex-ka 2) lodged by Nand Lal (P.W. 1) P.S. Aznar District Hamirpur on 1.8.1976 at 15.05 P.M. after negotiating a distance of nine miles. He alleged that his uncle Hemraj had gone to have grass from his field at about 8 a.m. and while returning to the village, the accused Ganpat armed with Barchhi and accused Ratiya armed with Kulhari pounced upon him and belaboured him with their respective weapons. After hearing alaim the complainant and other witnesses arrived there. Thereafter the accused escaped. Ganpat had a suspicion that Hemraj had illicit connection with his wife and on account of this he engineered the plot along with the co-accused and committed the crime. The condition of the injured was very serious. He was brought to Belatal Hospital, where he was medically examined. The medical examination took place at about 11 a.m. The injuries received by the victim have been noted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the body of his judgment and I need not repeat them again. After usual investigation the charge-sheet was submitted.

(3.) The prosecution examined Nand Lal (P.W. 1) who is the complainant. He has deposed that he knew both the accused Ganpat and Ratiya, who belonged to his village. Further he says that Ganpat suspected the illicit connection between Hemraj and his wife and on account of this, several time quarrels did take place. It was around 8 or 9 a.m. when the incident took place. He reached the place of occurrence after hearing alarm but he could not see the accused committing the crime with his own eyes. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examination. He admitted scribing of the first information report at the behest of Hemraj, injured. The defence did not cross-examine this witness.