JAG PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in the instant criminal appeal is the judgment dated 19.05.1982 and the order dated 20.05.1982 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda in Sessions Trial No.229 of 1981 arising out of Case Crime No.260 of 1980, Police Station Utraula, District Balrampur, whereby the appellants Jag Prasad, Panchu, Diwakar Shukla and Newal were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) IN brief, according to the version of the first information report, the incident of this case had taken place in the intervening night of 13/14.09.1980. At that time, the deceased and his younger brother Raghubir aged about 9 years were sleeping outside the house and the complainant was sleeping inside his house. There was light of a lamp. It was alleged in the first information report that appellant Diwakar Shukla and Panchu caused injuries to the deceased with knives and the other appellants caught hold of the deceased. On the alarm raised by the complainant one Ram Karan and other persons of the village reached there and these persons also witnessed the accused persons while running away from the scene of occurrence. The younger son of the complainant, who was sleeping with the deceased, had also received blood stains on his clothes and also on his hairs. The clothes and hairs were taken into custody and its memo was prepared. The first information report of this case was lodged by the complainant on the next day i.e. 14.09.1980 at 12.05 PM against all the four appellants. The investigation proceeded and the dead body was sent for postmortem. According to the postmortem report, one incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep at the front and right side of neck was found. Apart from it, there were multiple abrasions in an area of 4 cm x 3 cm at the front and left side of neck, upper part. According to the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage. According to the postmortem report, oesophagus was also damaged due to this injury. Investigation revealed that some quarrel ensued between Jamuna Prasad and appellant Diwakar regarding purchase of a watch. Banshi Lal another son of the deceased had sold a watch to accused Diwakar for Rs.105/ -. Diwakar paid Rs.100/ - and Rs.5/ - were outstanding. Banshi Lal went to Bombay and told his brother Jamuna Prasad (deceased) to realize the balance amount of Rs.5/ - from Diwakar. About a week before this incident, Jamuna Prasad asked Diwakar to pay the balance amount whereupon Diwakar threatened Jamuna Prasad with dire consequences and insisted upon him to take back the watch as it was defective and to refund the money. Jamuna Prasad refused to take back the watch due to it some quarrel took place and Diwakar threatened the deceased.

(3.) THE case of the defence was of total denial and their false implication because of enmity.