RAJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgement, hence these are being disposed of together.

(2.) Under challenge in the aforesaid criminal appeals is the judgment and order dated 31.05.1995 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1989, arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 1989, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Mainpuri, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 394 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) In brief, the case of the prosecution was that in the intervening night of 01/02.02.1989, the complainant along with his family members was sleeping in his house. There was light of a lamp in the thatch. Three assailants armed with lathi, country made pistol and farsa entered in his house by using Neem tree and caught hold of father (deceased) of the complainant, who was sleeping inside his room. Hearing the noise, the other family members also got up and saw that appellant Pappu @ Ramadhar was armed with a country made pistol and appellant Raj Bahadur was armed with a lathi, who were the residents of the same village, along with one unknown accused, who had covered his face and was armed with Farsa, had picked up a wooden box from the house and started making good their escape with the said wooden box. Father of the complainant tried to snatch the said looted property and followed the accused persons up to the house of one Panchi, where appellant Pappu @ Ramadhar alleged to have opened fire on the deceased due to which he fell down. On hue and cry raised on behalf of the complainant side, several persons of the vicinity arrived there and also identified the culprits in the light of the torches. The first information report of this case was lodged on 02.02.1989 at about 05.30 AM. The Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence, inspected the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report and thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem. During investigation, the wooden box and some of the looted property was recovered lying in a field and its memo was prepared. Blood stained earth was also collected from the place of occurrence. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against two named accused persons (present appellants). The postmortem on the body of the deceased took place on 03.02.1989 at 01.30 PM and as per postmortem report, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-