BADLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail ap peal is directed against the judgment of con viction and sentence dated 13-6-1980 for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, I. P. C. and 323 with 34,i. P. C. passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1979 against the accused-appel lant Badlu and his three sons, namely, Tulsi, Ganga Ram and Hem Raj; these four ac cused- appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the of fence uner Section 302 read with 34 and for a period of one year R. I. each for the offence under Section 323 read with 34,i. P. C. It is pertinent to note here that one of the con victed and sentenced four accused-appel lants, namely, Badlu has died during the pendency of this appeal, hence his appeal has abated.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, runs thus: One Bhagant had four sons, namely, Moti Lal, Badlu (accused), Raghubar and Jia Lal alias Jilal. Moti Lal had died about 35 years back while Bhagant died after the death of Moti Lal. THE agricultural land measuring about 56 Bighas was in the name of Bhagant and his sons Raghubar, accused Badlu and complainant Jia Lal had posses sion over it. According to the prosecution Bhagant had got the land leased out in the name of Badlu. Further, the prosecution case is that there had been some dispute between these brothers, namely, accused Badlu, Raghubar and Jia Lal in respect of the consolidation of holding going on in regard of the agricultural land, and at the time of the incident in question the appeal was pending in the Court of Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation.

(3.) CHARGES for the offence under Sec tions 302 read with 34,i. P. C. and 323 read with 34,i. P. C. were framed against the ac cused persons. They were read over and explained to them; they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to them they had been falsely implicated due to en mity.