CHANDOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 6 -3 -1980 of Sri Harish Chandra Saxena, the then III Additional Session Judge, Saharanpur, in S. T. No. 97 of 1979, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and also further convicting them under Section 323 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and awarding six months' R. I. to each of them. He also held Chandoo, Isam Singh, Bimal and Dal Singh appellants guilty of the charge punishable under Section 148, I. P. C. and accordingly he convicted and sentenced them under that count to a term of two years' R. I. , each, whereas Mehar appellant was further held guilty under Section 147, I. P. C. and was convicted there under and sentenced to one year's R. I. However, he directed the sentences of all the appellants passed under different counts to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case, as set out in the first infor mation report, was that accused Makhan and Mangal and the informant Ram Kishan (PW 1) and Sohan deceased were residents of village Manik Mau, within police station Kotwali Dehat, district Saharanpur. Makhan accused had no issue. His maternal nephew (Bhanja) Mehar and Smt. Kela daughter of his sister -in -law (Sali) were residing with him. Mehar had developed illicit connection with Smt. Kela, which was not liked by the residents of Manik Mau. Sohan deceased, Phulloo and some other resi dents of the village made a complaint to Makhan about that illicit connec tion of Mehar and Smt. Kela and asked him to export them from the village as their unholy affair was polluting the environment of the entire village. On 22 - 10 -1978 Smt. Kela was sent to her in -laws' house. On the fateful day, i. e. 23 -10 -1978, at about 6. 00 p. m. Sohan was going towards fields in the company of Pitambar and Ram Kishan, Sala and cousin, respec tively, of the deceased. When they were passing through a lane in front of the house of Makhan, the latter was standing at the door of his house. At that juncture Makhan asked Sohan as to why he was defaming his daughter (Kela ). Thereupon Sohan reiterated that it was their own misdeed which was defaming them. Makhan started abusing Sohan for which Ram Kishan and Pitambar reprimanded Makhan. In the meantime the appellants and Mangal came out of the Bagar of Makhan, of them, Bimal and Isam Singh were armed with knives, Dal Singh with an axe, Chandoo with a spear and Mehar with a lathi. They also abused Sohan and his companions and exhorting to kill him they all pounced upon the deceased and his associate Ram Kishan and Pitambar and started inflicting injuries with their respec tive weapons. During assault informant Ram Kishan and Pitambar tracked behind and, therefore, they received only minor injuries. On the hue and cry raised by Sohan and his companions, Suba and Amarnath arrived on the spot. Bimal and Isam Singh caused kaifc injuries on the person of Sohan while Dal Singh and Mehar inflicted axe and lathi injuries, respectively. Chandoo also wielded his spear on Sohan but as the luck would have it, the blow fell on Dal Singh instead of Sohan for which Dal Singh reprimanded Chandoo. Mangal and Makhan grappled with the deceased and dragged him into the Bagar saying that they would kill him. In the Bagar also the deceased was beaten by the accused with their respec tive weapons and thereafter his body was' thrown on the kharanja in the lane, various persons had collected on the spot and after seeing them the accused persons had run away towards east of the village. Sohan died on the spot and his dead -body was lying there in the lane. Ram Kishan (PW 1) alongwith his brother Raghubir, Kurdi and Pooran went to police station for lodging the F. I. R. when they were going near the Cotton Mill, an employee of the Mill came across in the way to whom they narrated the entire episode and got a report of the incident scribed from him. That report was then sent to police station Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur through Raghubir and Kurdi, who lodged it there at 8. 05 p. m. on the same day, i. e. , 23 -10 -1978.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 9 witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of them, Ram Kishan (PW 1 ). Pitambar (PW 2) and Amarnath (PW 3) were the witnessss of factum of the incident while others were formal in nature.