RAGHURAJ AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court.- The three appellants stood a trial in S.T No. 79 of 1979 and were convicted by an order of the Vth Addition­al Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 12-12 1980. All were sentenced to life imprison­ment for their conviction under Section 302/34I.P.C. as also for R. I. for one year for their conviction under Section 403/34 I.P.C. the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal was admitted on 15-12-80 and the appellants were directed to be released on bail and they were so released. The case against them was in­itiated on an F.I.R. lodged at 9 p.m. on 25-12-78at police station Sumerpur, in the district of Hamirpur, by one Smt. Sukh Rani wife of Binda Singh. She had named all the three present appellants in the F.I.R. and had stated that about noon on that date the informant and others had gone to the place where bricks being prepared. They had gone to keep a watch on the work. At about 5 p.m. Babuiya son of the informant alongwith Mustaq Ton-gawala and Mukhkhu came there and Babuiya also started watching the bricks. By then the appellants came there with arms. Raghuraj had a single barrel gun with him, Pratap had a lathi with him, Deoraj Singh had a single barrel gun and with them another man Ram Kripal Singh was also there with a spear. These persons surrounded Babuiya and Pratap shouted "mardo dushman ko bachne na paye" (kill the enemy he must not be spared). Ram Kripal fell as Babuiya on the ground. Deoraj shot him near his neck from a touching distance. Raghuraj shot two fires and thereafter Deoraj, after reloading his gun, gave another shot on Babuiya. The victim died at the spot. The complainant and others shouted. Ram Kripal took away a watch from the hands of the deadbody of Babuiya and some cash from his pocket. Raghuraj and Deoraj kept on firing and declared they could finally take the revenge. They fled towards the east. It was alleged that about 14 years prior to this incident the husband of the complainant and her son were murdered for which Raghuraj and Ram Kripal were sentenced to life imprisonment and for that grudge only the present murder was committed.

(2.) THE F.I.R. was scribed by one Ram Singh and case Crime No. 212 was in­itiated. An investigation was taken up, necessary seizure and arrest were made. Inquest was done and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. This examination was done on 27-12-78 at about 11.15a.m. and the doctor estimated the time of death to be within two days from his examination. It was the dead body of a 35 years old male of average built. Rigor mortis had passed off from the upper limbs but was present in the lower ex-trinity. There were four gun shot wounds of entry. One was on the right side of larynx, the second half a centimeter above the first, the third on the chest attend to the list nipple and the fourth on the right buttock. The doctor noted blackening charring, scorching and tattooing on the different injuries. On internal examina­tion the skill borne was found fractured into pieces. 14 shots were found in the brain along with two wads pices. The 5th and 6th ribs on the left side were found fractured. The heart was severally lacer tatted. The lungs were found perforated and lacerated. The stomach contents 4 of pasty food. Small intestine also contained pasty food matter. Death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of fire arms injuries. The shots recovered from the brain along with wads were sent back to the police station in a sealed cover.

(3.) THE prosecution examiend seven witnesses. P.W. 1 was Smt. Sukh Rani the complainant. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were Meera Devi and Geeta, the ladies who had accompanied Sukh Rani to the brick field. These three ladies are the alleged eyewitnesses. Ram Singh P.W. 4 was the scribe of the F.I.R. P.W. 5 Jodha Singh had received the F.I.R. and entered the chik report and in­itiated the case. P.W. 6 Dr. K.C. Singh had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body P.W. 7 Ravindra Kishore Pandey was the Investigating Officer. The prosecution brought on record the seizure memos, the postmortem report as also an affidavit of one constable on a formal point. The defence proved certain state­ments of the witnesses made before police. After examination of the accused persons under Section 313, Cr. P.C. they declined to examine any defence witnesses.