(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The present ap peal is directed against the judgment and order of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, dated 18-9-1980 whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On presentation of the appeal, the appellant was directed to be released on bail by an order of this Court dated 24-9-1980.
(2.) THE appellant and three others, viz. Hiralal, Rajaram and Phateh Chandra, stood charge for an offence under Section 34, IPC in S. T No. 321 of 1979. While the other three were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted, the present appellant was convicted and sen tenced, as stated above.
(3.) IN the course of his submission, the learned Counsel for the appellant ques tioned the truth of the prosecution story for absence of explanation of a cut finger, which was observed by the INvestigating Officer at the time of the inquest as also for discrepancies in the statements of the wit nesses. It was further urged that when three persons, against whom similar evidence was given by the prosecution wit nesses, were granted benefit of doubt, there was no reason for the trial Court to have believed the prosecution version in respect of the present appellant alone. It was further slated that the motive against the present appellant was not at all proved and in any view of the matter, according to the prosecution version, there had been only one rifle shot, but the medical evidence indicated four shots from the same weapon and even if il was held that Naurang was having a rifle, the other three rifle injuries are not explained by the prosecution. The theory of causing injury from a close range was also disputed as only one of the injuries on the deceased had blackening and charring, while others were not of that description. The learned Counsel also submitted that there was no acceptable evidence on record that the death was caused due to a rifle shot or that the bullet, that was found, could have been shot from a 315 bore rifle.