(1.) The Appellants, Punit Mochi, Pinku Mochi and Karu Mochi of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1106 of 2009 have been convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life and the Appellant, Yogeshwar Mochi of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 398 of 2010 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/21.07.2009 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Jehanabad in S.Tr. No. 145/05/(S.J.)305/05 and 88/07 (145/05)/305/05(S.J.) arising out of Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004.
(2.) The case of the prosecution according to Ramphal Mochi, P.W. No. 10/6 is that on 09.05.2004 at about 8 P.M., his son, Akhilesh Kumar aged about twelve years was playing in front of the door where a lot of other children were also playing the mother of Akhilesh Kumar told him that he plays in front of her door. Just then the Appellant, Yogeshwar Mochi, Bundel Mochi, Pinku Mochi, Karu Mochi, Suchit Mochi and Punit Mochi who were returning from a Barat reached his door and started to abuse. Then Appellant, Yogeshwar Mochi ran inside his house and brought out a "Fasuli" and attacked Akhilesh Kumar (deceased) on the left leg and right hand on account of which his hand was completely amputated. Then the rest of the accused persons also started to assault with lathies. A number of persons gathered there and pacified the fight. The child, Akhilesh Kumar was brought to the Jehanabad Hospital where unfortunately he died. The statement was recorded in the Hospital itself on 10.05.2004 at 1.30 A.M. It appears that two Session Trials were held one being S.Tr. No. 145 of 2005 whereas the next one was S.Tr. No. 88 of 2007.
(3.) P.W.1, Jogeshwar Ravidas was examined as P.W.1 in the next trial whereas P.W.2, Jogendra Mochi was examined as P.W.3, Dukhharan Mochi, P.W.4 was examined as P.W.4, Dular Chand Mochi, P.W.5 was examined as P.W.2, Urmila Devi, P.W.6 was examined as P.W.5, Dr. Dhirendra Prasad Singh, P.W. 8 was examined as P.W.7 and Ramphal Mochi, P.W.10 was examined as P.W.6. Thus, it appears that seven witnesses were out of eleven were common in both the trials.