There was an appeal by Udai Raj Singh against his companyviction while the State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
The High Court, in its judgment, first companysidered the case against Sadhu Singh and recorded the following finding in regard to the evidence of Deomani P.W. 2 We were taken through the entire statement of this child witness and we are of the opinion that she had number repeated any tutored statement, because she was able to give straightforward answers to a number of questions regarding details of the occurrence and the topography We are, therefore, satisfied that Deomani was able to see both the murders having been companymitted by Sadhu Singh in broad day light.
They also stated that they had numberenmity either with Randhir Singh or with Shyama Devi.
The sentence of death was companyfirmed by the High Court and the appellant has companye up in appeal by special leave.
He thought that the implication of Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath companyld number be said to be free from doubt.
With regard to Deomani the learned Counsel argued that apart from the fact that she was a child witness, the High Court had found that she had been prevailed upon by the other witnesses to falsely implicate Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
Randhir Singh apprehended danger to his life and in fact made a companyplaint Exh.
At the time of the occurrence Deomani was aged about 13 years.
However, he expressed the view that Deomani was a natural and companyvincing witness whose evidence was left unshaken despite lengthy cross examination.
Seeing Shyama Devi, Udai Raj Singh and the others shouted Kill the Sali, she has become the owner of the property.
Mataphal and Amar Nath witnessed the shooting of Randhir Singh only while Jagbir Singh witnessed the shooting of both Randhir Singh and Shyama Devi.
P.W. 11 handed over the investigation to the C.I.D. and later took over the investigation again from the C.I.D. on 20th June, 1973.
Randhir Singh also fell down dead.
Sadhu Singh chased her and shot at her with his pistol.
Randhir Singh and Shyama Devi used to attend to the cultivation of land.
Deomani P.W. 2 started running to the place where her grandfather Randhir Singh was sitting in order to companyvey the information to him.
The High Court then proceeded to companysider the case against Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
Sadhu Singh was armed with a pistol, Udai Raj Singh was armed with a gun while Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were armed with a spear and a Gandasa respectively.
The stomach companytents of both Shyama Devi and Randhir Singh showed partly digested food.
On 26th March, 1973, at about 7 30 a.m. Deomani P.W. 2 was sitting at, the door of her house while Shyama Devi was tethering a company in front of the house.
Udai Raj Singhs appeal was allowed and he was also acquitted.
Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were acquitted and Udai Raj Singh was companyvicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge.
On those findings Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were acquitted and the companyviction and sentence of Sadhu Singh were companyfirmed.
He fired three shots.
At that time Randhir Singh was sitting in front of a cycle repair shop about 100 yards away and attending to the harvesting of his wheat crop.
Randhir Singh was aged about 70 years at the time of his death, Shyama Devi was aged about 35 years.
Their daughter Deomani was living with her grand father Randhir Singh and aunt Shyama Devi in the village of Nadula.
He submitted that Mataphal, Jagbir Singh and Amarnath were found to be inimically disposed towards the accused and had falsely implicated Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
Ka 1 prepared by Mataphal.
Referring to the evidence of Deomani against these three persons, the High Court expressed the view that she was prevailed upon to implicate Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
His only son had died about 14 years before the occurrence and his widowed daughter in law Shyama Devi was living with him.
Her evidence, according to the learned Sessions Judge left numberroom for doubt about the guilt of Sadhu Singh and Udai Raj Singh though her evidence against Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath companyld number be said to be free from suspicion and influence.
Randhir Singh had a daughter who was living with her husband in another village about 20 miles from Nadula.
It was, therefore, impossible to accept their evidence against Sadhu Singh either.
Randhir Singh tried to escape by attempting to run into the house of Jagdeo.
2, 3, 4 and 5 as eye witnesses to the occurrence.
Thereafter the accused persons ran away.
He numbericed gun shot injuries on both the dead bodies and opined that death was due to gun shot injuries in both the cases.
After the accused persons ran away Deomani, Mataphal and other witnesses went to the spot where Randhir Singh had fallen and found him dead.
The case has undoubtedly been companyplicated by the High Court speaking in two voices while dealing with the case of Sadhu Singh on the one hand and the case of the rest of the accused on the other.
The occurrence was witnessed, amongst others, by Mataphal P.W. 3 , Jagbir Singh P.W. 4 and Amar Nath P.W. 5 .
Deomani got a report Ex.
Deomani and Mataphal went to the Police Station at Sarai Mamrez, four miles away, and presented the report to the Sub Inspector P.W. 11 at 10.05 a.m. On receipt of the report P.W. 11 recorded the statement of P.W. 3 and then proceeded to the village for investigation.
The learned Sessions Judge did number administer, the oath to Deomani on the ground that she was a child but he satisfied himself that she understood the necessity to speak the truth.
Sadhu Singhs father Udai Raj Singh, Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath were also tried by the learned Sessions Judge.
While she was going towards her grandfather crying and shouting, the four accused also came to the place where her grandfather was sitting.
The learned Sessions Judge numbericed that P.Ws.
The appeal by the State was dismissed.
Shyama Devi started running.
After companypletion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against the four accused persons.
Udai Raj Singh, Sadhu Singh and Nagendra Nath Singh surrendered themselves in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate on 2nd April, 1973, while Bhuleshwar Nath surrendered himself on 5th April, 1973.
Shyama Devi fell down dead.
Ka 53 and sought police protection.
Noticing the circumstance that the part attributed to these three persons was numberhing more than exhortation despite the fact that they were armed with deadly weapons, the High Court came to the companyclusion that they were falsely implicated.
The High Court was of the view that the case against Udai Raj Singh stood on the same footing as the case against Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
On those findings the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath and companyvicted Sadhu Singh and Udai Raj Singh as aforesaid.
The High Court also expressed the view that the First Information Report companyld number have been dictated by a thirteen year old village girl like P.W. 2.
As Randhir Singh had numbermale issue, Udai Raj Singh and his son Sadhu Singh wanted to grab his property.
After holding the inquest, ho arranged to send the two dead bodies for autopsy.
The case of the prosecution briefly was as follows Randhir Singh owned about 45 bighas of land in the village of Nadula.
The Investigating Officer who looked for the accused persons did number find them in the village.
At the trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.
P.W. 8 the Reader in Forensic Medicine companyducted the post mortem examination on the two dead bodies.
Earlier the High Court had found that the witnesses other than Deomani were inimically disposed to the accused and companyld number be said to be independent witnesses.
In regard to the evidence of other witnesses, while companysidering the case against Sadhu Singh, the High Court said We have scrutinized the statement of these eye witnesses and there seems to be numberreason for doubting their presence at the time of the two occurrences, as numbered above.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The appellant Sadhu Singh alias Surya Pratap Singh was companyvicted of the murders of Shyama Devi and Randhir Singh and sentenced to death by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allahabad.
Sadhu Singh and Udai Raj Singh preferred appeals to the High Court against their companyviction, while the State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of Nagendra Nath Singh and Bhuleshwar Nath.
The four accused came to the house of Randhir Singh.
Sadhu Singh chased him and fired three shots at him.
3, 4 and 5 were inimically disposed towards the accused and that there were circumstances in the case to support the defence allegation that they must have exercised some influence over Deomani.
