MAHAVIR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.08.1988 passed by II-Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in Sessions Trial No.463 of 1987 State Vs. Tano @ Tan Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.235 of 1987, under Sections 302, 307, 323 IPC, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura whereby accused Mahavir, Brij Nandan and Shanker have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC whereas accused Tano @ Tan Singh has been acquitted of charges giving benefit of doubt. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Relevant to mention that appellant Shanker died during pendency of the appeal, therefore, his appeal stood abated on 06.10.2015. At present this appeal pertains to the two appellants namely Mahavir and Brij Nandan.

(3.) The unfolded background facts giving rise to the present appeal as are discernible from the written report (Ext. Ka-10), Chik FIR (Ext. Ka-20) and deposition of fact witnesses during sessions trial are that all three accused are real brothers. The deceased Tej Singh was closely related with them and he used to reside adjacent to the house of the accused persons. The father of the accused persons namely Sukkha and deceased had some joint land. Sukkha, father of the accused is alleged to have mortgaged his portion of joint land to a bank for securing loan and since he could not repay the loan amount, the bank in order to recover the loan amount got the said portion of the land (belonging to Sukkha) auctioned. In the auction, the said land was purchased by one Mahant Keshari Dutt who executed an agreement to sell the said portion of the land to the deceased Tej Singh but after executing the said agreement, Mahant Keshari Dutt died in an accident. However, the wife of Mahant Keshari Dutt instead of selling the said land to the deceased Tej Singh entered into a fresh agreement with the accused after seeking permission of the District Judge.