SONEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal ap peal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26-9-1980, passed by Ses sions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1980, eonvieting the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) FACTUAL background of' this appeal relates to sole accused appellant who al legedly nursed grudge against deccased Raghunath because wife of the appellant was abducted by him. The occurrence thus took place while Ragunath deccased was reluming from Biswan in District Sitapur on a cycle with a bag of paddy on 21-10-1976 and reached at about 11 a. m. towards south of a place where two heaps of PAYAL were stored. Accused appellant Soney along with one unknown person, whose identity could not be traced till this dale, came out from the backside of the heaps of PAYAL. He asked the deccased for BIDI smoking with him and it was at that time when accused Soney 's un known companion shouted to kill the deccased. Thereupon accused Soney fired from country made pistol Ragunath of at who cried whereupon wit nesses Hardwari, Jai Karan Singh and Gulam came to the scene of the crime. The accused in the meantime had run away. Hardwari reached the place of occur rence and found Ragunath dead lying other. Thereafter FIR was lodged at police station at 3. 30p. m. on The same day. Inves tigation to fllowed and The accused was charge-sheeted. The trial Court recorded evidence of the witnesses examined in the case and concluded at page 16 of the judg ment under appeal that the prosecution produced two witnesses, Jai Karan Singh (PW-2) and Gulam (PW-3) who actually saw the accused causing fatal injury to the deccased. They were solely reliable wit nesses of the occurrence. Hardwari (PW-1) was informant and father of the deccased. He also saw the occurrence. The trial Court further found that the occur rence had taken place ai about 104 sleps from the place where he was working. The trial Court further held that he was an old man and he could not see and recognise persons even in day time beyond six 10 seven sleps but he could very well recog nise the accused appellant as well as vic tim, his son by their voice on hearing their conversation. He, therefore, rushed to 'he scene of crime and found his son lying dead. The trial Court thus believing the evidcnce on the record convicted the ap pellant and sentenced him to life im prisonment, resulting in the present ap peal.

(3.) THE trial Court relied on the ocular evidence of PW-1 Hardwari, PW-2 Jai Karan Singh and PW-3 Gulam. It is now to be seen as to how-far the trial Court has been able to appreciate the evidence properly.