1 and 4 speak to the shooting by the accused on both Murder and Sri Ram.
The High Court has number believed the evidence of P.W. 12, the father of Murder that on the morning of the occurrence, his son was sent for by the respondent through his nephew D.W. 1 and that Murder left the house to meet the respondent along with D.W. 1.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 12 that on the said morning D.W. 1 came and took Murder on the ground that the respondent wanted to see him and that both of them left towards the house of the respondent.
Murder replied that whatever happens will be faced by him.
1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15 and 24.
This means that the High Court was number prepared to accept the evidence of P.Ws.
But so far as the offence of causing the death of Murder was companycerned, the learned Sessions Judge companyvicted the respondent Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death.
P.W 24 has spoken to the persistent attempts made by the respondent to turn her out of the room.
Sri Ram seeing the dead body of Murder, abused the accused for killing an innocent man.
At this the respondent rebuked Sri Ram and asked him to get away on pain of being shot.
It is number necessary to give details about the nature of the injuries described on the bodies of the two deceased as well as the injury found on P.W. 3 because the accused has admitted shooting with the gun both Murder and Sri Ram and he has further stated that Bhola Nath sustained an injury when he fired at Sri Ram.
The second part of the incident, according to the learned Judge, was when Sri Ram came on the hearing about the shooting of Murder and started abusing the respondent and throwing stones along with several other people.
Similarly, the High Court has number accepted the prosecution evidence that Murder had numberpart in throwing of stones against the respondent and that he did number attempt to attack the respondent with the dagger.
When Murder was advancing towards the respondent armed with a knife and followed by Sri Ram and the crowd, the respondent fired against Murder as he apprehended danger to his life as well as to the lives of the members of his family.
With reference to Murder, it stated that he had received a circular gun shot injury 1 1/2 in diameter and that there was numberburning or charring around the wound It is further numbered that on internal examination the right 6th and 7th ribs of Murder on the anterior side for about 2 were found almost wholly absent, and the missing pieces were found embedded in lungs and liver.
Regarding the incident, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.
Bhola Nath was also with Murder and Sri Ram aggressively threatening the respondent and pelting stones.
On the body of Sri Ram, the doctor found the injuries numbered in Ex, ka 20.
The doctor has stated that the injury might have been caused by friction against a hard object, which companyld have been the gun shot.
At that time P.W. 4 intervened and advised Murder to go away.
The High Court has held that the shooting of Murder and Sri Ram and causing injury to Bhola Nath were parts of one and the same incident and there was absolutely numberjustification for dividing it into two parts as was done by the learned Sessions Judge.
19 and 20 respectively.
P.W. 5 speaks to having seen the shooting of Murder and so far as that shooting is companycerned, his evidence is similar to that of P Ws 1 and 4.
According to their evidence, they saw in the morning of December 7, 1965 at about 9 or 9.30 A.M. both Murder and Babbu D.W. 1 companying together to the house of the accused On seeing Murder companying, the accused came armed with the gun and advanced towards Murder abusing him in vulgar language.
Sri Ram also was shouting that the respondent and the members of his family should be killed.
There was numberappeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent of the offence of murder Under Section 302 IPC regarding the death of Sri Ram number against his acquittal Under Section 307 IPC for the injury caused to Bhola Nath.
The plea of the accused was as follows He denied the incident spoken to by the witnesses stated to have taken place on the evening of Dec 6, 1965.
Babbu D.W. 1, nephew of the respondent, came and called his son Murder saying that he was wanted by his uncle, the respondent.
After Murder had fallen down, the accused reloaded his gun.
D.W. 2s evidence is number very material.
She has also denied the suggestion that there was an attempt by Murder to kill the respondent with a knife when the accused opened fire against Murder.
When Murder was shot, under those circumstances, the respondent had numberright of private defence and it was a companyd blooded murder.
Bhola Nath also received an injury and was crying that he had been shot by the accused.
He and his family occupied first and the second floors in that house though they had to use the water tap and the latrine on the ground floor.
P.W. 24 appears to have represented about this to several people in the locality including Murder.
The injury has been described as follows An abrasion 1/2x1/4 together with traumatic swelling 1 1/4x 3/4 located below the anterio superioriliac spine and in front of the upper part of the left thigh.
He has deposed that on the morning of December 7, 1965.
The learned Judge has divided the incident which took place on December 7, 1965 into two parts.
The learned Judge numberes that the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, who visited the scene and had numbericed much quantity of brick bots and glass pieces lying on the roof of the verandah, on the floor and in the room of the respondent, but merely brushed aside this companysideration on the ground that it is number necessary to be taken into account to do justice in the case.
The learned Sessions Judge numbered the discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.
On seeing the police party, the crowd stopped pelting stones and throwing empty bottles towards the house of the respondent.
The police, who had been informed by P.W. 3 by telephone that shooting was taking place in the area, immediately arrived on the scene headed by the Sub Inspector, P.W. 25.
Regarding the shooting of Murder and Sri Ram, she has given the same evidence as that of P.Ws.
After companying near Murder he fired his gun at Murder and the latter fell down dead.
He was also charged with the offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. for causing injuries to Bhola Nath P.W. 3 with such intention or knowledge that if the shooting had caused the death of Bhola Nath he would have been guilty of murder.
After having exhausted the throwing of one heap of stones Sri Ram was actually picking up stones from another heap to be hurled against the respondent and his family members, and it was then that the respondent shot dead Sri Ram.
3, 15 and Ors.
On hearing the news about he shooting incideat, the neighbours including one Sri Ram, who was a friend of Murder and Bhola Nath P.W. 8 came near the house of the accused.
She has also spoken about the incident on the evening of December 6, 1965 and the quarrel that took place between Murder and the respondent.
P.W. 16, who was at time an M.L.A. speaks to having heard the sound of a gun shot and when he came to the place he found Murder already lying dead.
According to the doctor death was caused by haemorrhage due to injury sustained by the gun shot.
But the respondent was taking steps to evict her and had also asked her to vacate the rooms.
Regarding the incident on the morning of December 7, 1965, he admitted firing two shots, the first of which killed Murder and of the second killing Sri Ram and he claimed that he had shot them to save number only his life but also the lives of his wife and child, as Murder was armed with a knife and was advancing for the purpose of killing him.
At that time Murder came to that place and protested against the companyduct of the respondent in throwing out the articles of P.W. 24.
1, 4 and 24 speak to the quarrel that took place between the respondent and Murder in companysequence of the articles of P.W. 24 being thrown out of her room.
1, 4 and 12 that Murder came to the house of the respondent on having been informed by D W. 1 that his uncle wants to meet him.
He has number spoken to anything about the shooting of Sri Ram.
He further deposed that Sri Ram came there and abused the respondent for having shot dead Murder for numberpurpose.
The learned Judge has accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
According to the doctor death had been caused due to the injuries caused by the gun shot.
The death of Sri Ram, under those circumstances, by the respondent was perfectly justified and it was only in the exercise of his right of private defence to save his life and the lives of the members of his family.
The shooting of Murder, under those circumstances, according to the High Court was in exercise of the right of private defence by the respondent.
In the mean while Sri Ram accompanied by P.Ws.
came to the place on hearing about the shooting at Murder.
The respondent shot at Sri Ram and killed him.
The post mortem certificates in respect of Murder and Sri Ram are Exs.
Sri Ram began to abuse the accused for killing an innocent person.
When Murder came near the house of the respondent, the latter immediately shot him with a single barrel breach loading gun, Ex.
1, 4 and 24 regarding the incident on the evening of December 6, 1965, but nevertheless held that something of the sort spoken to by the prosecution must have occurred on the evening between Murder and respondent and that the said incident ultimately led to the gun play on the next morning.
She has also denied the further suggestion that Sri Ram led to crowd into the house of the respondent for the purpose of killing the respondent and the other members of his family and when so advancing there was very heavy pelting of stones and that in order to save his life as well as the lives of the members of his family, the respondent opened fire against Sri Ram The Police Officer, P.W. 25 has spoken to the fact that brick bats and stones and broken pieces of broken glass bottles were seen on the road,in the verandah of the house of the respondent as well as near his room and on the roof of the house.
But he has nevertheless stated that the injury was simple.
In that shot which was fired, he also sustained an injury and ran away from that place due to the pain and fear.
One of the pellets from the gun shot hit Bhola Nath who sustained an injury and ran away crying that he had been injured by the accused.
She has denied the suggestion that she was having an old husband and she was living in illicit intimacy with Murder She has further denied that on the morning of Dec 7, 1965, the wife of the respondent seeing Murder sitting close to P.W. 24 in her room remarked that Murder had companyverted the house into a Sarabkhana and a Bhatiar khana and in view of this a quarrel ensued between the respondent and Murder was pushed out of the house by the respondent and his nephew D.W. 1.
1, 4 and 24 that Murder came to the house of the respondent accompanied by Babbu D.W. 1 and that he was straightaway shot.
P.W. 14 performed the post mortem on the bodies of Murder and Sri Ram.
Several people came to the scene and infuriated at the companyduct of the accused began to throw stones and empty bottles towards his room.
Similarly, as Bholanath was also aggressive like Sri Ram and got injured by the shot fired by the respondent against Sri Ram in exercise of his right of private sdefence the respondent is number guilty of any offence Under Section 307 IPC.
The learned Judge rejected the plea of the respondent that there was an attempt by Murder and Sri Ram led by a big mob to kill the respondent and the members of his family.
The learned Judge in companysequence acquitted the respondent of the charge of murder Under Section 302 IPC of killing Sri Ram and he also acquitted him of the offence Under Section 307 IPC for the injury caused to Bhola Nath P.W. 3.
Therefore, the respondent was number guilty of murder of Sri Ram Under Section 302 IPG though he shot him with the intention of killing him.
As Sri Ram persisted in abusing the respondent, the latter fired the gun at Sri Ram, who fell down dead.
She was living in the rooms for over six years was paying rent to the respondent.
1 and 4.
P.W. 3 Bhola Nath has deposed to the effect that he was on his way to fetch his fathers sister on the morning of December 7, 1965 when he heard the sound of a gun shot companying from the direction of the house of the respondent.
The accused asked Murder to get away.
According, they were all taken by the police officer to the police station.
On seeing the said shooting he informed the police by telephone that shooting was taking place in that area.
According to these witnesses, on the evening of December 6, 1965 the respondent in a high handed manner threw out the articles of P.W. 24 on the road with a view to making her vacate the rooms.
The doctor has further opined that the gun must have been fired from a distance of more than 4 feet and possibly six feet from the deceased.
It was under those circumstances that he had to open fire and the moment the police party came he voluntarily gave the gun to the police officer and requested him to give protection number only to him but also to his wife and child.
Both these witnesses have admitted that after the shooting incident several people assembled at the place and getting excited started pelting stones and throwing empty bottles in the direction of the house of the respondent.
An alteration ensued between the respondent and Murder, but an adjoining shop keeper Ram Prasad, P.W. 4, intervened and separated them, as a result of which P.W. 24 took back the articles to her house.
He met Sri Kam who was then near about that place and both of them went near the house of the respondent and saw the companypse of Murder lying near the house of the respondent.
Both Murder and Babbu left the house and within 20 or 25 minutes the witness was informed by a stranger that Murder had been shot dead by Vakil Saheb.
When Sri Ram started abusing the accused the latter fired at Sri Ram and killed him.
The accused was arrested with the gun taken to the police station His wife and child were also taken away by the police party so that numberharm may be caused to them by the crowd which had assembled there.
On being hit by the gun shot Murder instantly fell down and died on the spot.
She has further denied that Murder on being so humiliated left the house threatening the respondent with dire companysequence and that shortly thereafter Murder returned with Sri Ram, P.W. 15 and very many other people and began to throw stones and empty bottles towards the room where the respondent was sitting.
The respondent is a lawyer and was residing at the material time in Mohalla Dunkinganj in a three storeyed house.
A. Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the question that arises for companysideration is whether the acquittal, by the High Court, of the respondent for the offence Under Section 302 I.P.C. is companyrect.
P.W. 3, who had sustained an injury was examined by the doctor P.W. 2 and he has issued the wound certificate Ex Ka 4.
He had also examined his nephew Babbu, D W 1 to speak to the fact that the respondent never asked him to go and bring Murder on the morning of December 7, 1965 and also to speak to the further fact that when the crowd was threateningly advancing towards his house led by Murder and Sri Ram and pelting stones, the respondent asked D.W. 1 to go and fetch the police.
On this the accused fired with the same gun another shot at Sri Ram, who fell down dead.
P.W. 12 is the father of Murder.
On the evening of December 6, 1965 the respondent again asked P.W. 24 to vacate the rooms and actually threw out her household articles on the road.
Murder came to meet the respondent, when the latter shot him dead.
The injuries were on the left side of the chest and on the right scapular region.
On hearing this he ran towards the house of the accused and saw the dead body of Murder and also of Sri Ram lying dead.
According to the prosecution, on December 7, 1965 at about 8 A.M. the respondent sent his nephew Babbu, D.W. 1, to bring Murder.
8 The accused was charged Under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of Murder and Sri Ram by shooting them with a fire arm.
According to the learned Judge, Murder was shot in the first instance by the respondent when his nephew Babbu brought him.
Therefore, he pleaded that what he did was by way of private defence and that he was number guilty.
The respondent filed criminal appeal No.
The ground floor rooms had been let out to several persons including Smt Keshar, P.W. 24.
Regarding the shooting of Murder and Sri Ram on the morning of December 7, 1965 the learned Sessions Judge after companysidering the prosecution version and the defence plea, is of the opinion that the story of the prosecution is by and large a companyrect one.
The big crowd was very heavily throwing stones towards his residential room and the crowd itself was advancing headed by Murder and Sri Ram.
At that time Murder, who came there protested against the action of the respondent.
