AMBIKA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appeals, described above, arise out of a common incident, which took place on 18-6-1974, at noon in the agricultural area of Village Bichaila, Police Station Jaitpur, District Faizabad.

(2.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1978, the F. I. R. was lodged by Barsati Ram on 18-6-1974 at 2. 20 p. m. stating that adjoining towards the west of his Plot No. 585/3 of that village is the field to accused Ambika Singh and at noon time on that day his cousin brother Banshi Ram, his brother Phool Chand and his father, Ram Khelawan were casting manure in Plot No. 585/3, whereupon accused Ambika Singh, carrying a country-made pistol, his son Uma, carrying a gun, Ram Pratap, the Sarhoo of Ambika Singh and the latter's tubewell mechanic, Jagdamba and Tatsat, all armed with Lathis, arrived and said that 3-4 Laththas of the land in the western side belonged to them and that Banshi Ram etc. must not cast manure in that area. When Barasati Ram etc. asked Ambika Singh and others to get the measurements done, assuring that Banshi Ram etc. would leave so much of the area as might fall in the plot of Ambika Singh and others, Ambika Singh, hurling abuses, fired three shots from his country-made pistol. Banshi Ram fell down injured. IN the meantime, Barsati Ram, Ram Sumer, Sheo Bheekh, Hari Lal and others arrived. The accused attacked Ram Khelawan, Phool Chand with Lathis and ran away. On the basis of this report a check report was prepared against Ambika Singh and others, including Tatsat, for oifences under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 323, I. P. C.

(3.) IN Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1975 Ambika Singh, Uma and Ram Pratap and Jagdamba were convicted for offences under Section 307 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and under Section 147, I. P. C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 1 year respectively. IN addition, Ambika, Singh and Uma were convicted for offence under Section 148, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. All the sentences of the respective accused were ordered to run concurrently.