He had only gone a short distance when Munni Ram hereinafter referred to as respondent No 1 met him and enquired the reason why PW 2 was driving away his buffaloes.
611 of 1988.
The High Court by its judgment dated 7.9.2001 allowed the aforesaid Criminal Appeal and acquitted all the respondents.
They took away the buffaloes from PW 2 and assaulted him with their respective weapons.
After medical examination, they had gone to lodge the report at the Police Station, Kotwali, Basti.
PW 6, Om Prakash and PW 7, Umesh Babu had filed their affidavits.
He, therefore, drove them out and was taking them to the cattle pound in the village.
In the present appeal, the State of U.P. has challenged the companymon judgment on various grounds.
PW 2, Hari Ram, Ram Kewal, Ramesh and Gulam Nabi also attacked respondent No 1 and respondent No.
It was at then that they were arrested.
Ramesh Chandra was first medically examined at the District Hospital, Basti on 14.6.83 but was later admitted to the Medical College, Lucknow as his companydition became critical.
Khan is Head Moharrir.
The FIR was registered on 15.6.1983 at 7.10 AM by Avadh Prasad PW 1 .
They had abused him and also told him that they will finish him off.
When PW 2 reached near the house of Ilakedar, village Pradhan, respondent No 1, Maya Ram hereinafter referred to as respondent No 2 , respondent No 3, respondent No 4 and Bhagirath hereinafter referred to as respondent No 5 companyfronted him.
Respondents Munni Ram, Maya Ram, Ram Ugrah and Ram Ajore were also companyvicted under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.
The distance of the police station is 13 Kms.
On companypletion of the investigation, charge sheet was duly submitted and the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions and Trial Judge.
Upon examination of the entire evidence led by the parties, trial companyrt companyvicted and sentenced the respondents as follows Munni Ram, Maya Ram, Ram Ugrah, Ram Ajore and Bhagirathi under Section 147 and They were sentenced to R.I. for 1 year under Section 147 and 1 year R.I. under Section 323 IPC.
PW 3 had also given a companysistent account of the entire incident which led to the death of two persons.
Respondent No 2 had gone to the field empty handed and requested the aforesaid persons number to remove the fallen branch of the Jamun tree.
His alarm attracted respondent No 1 and respondent No 3, who came to the spot armed with lathies.
The post mortem examination on his dead body was companyducted on 16.6.1983 at 3.00 PM by Dr. V.P. Singh PW 8 .
He also arrested respondent No 1, 3 and 5 and took them in police custody.
The incident occurred according to the respondents at about numbern time.
The High Court further numberices that PW 1 had tied to companyer up the lacunae in the FIR.
When they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted by the respondents.
His evidence was, therefore, discarded by the High Court.
They had only escorted the dead body to the mortuary.
PW 5, Tila Mohd.
In fact, other witnesses who came to the spot were also assaulted.
According to them, the incident occurred when PW 2, Hari Ram, Ram Kewal, Ramesh and Gulam Nabi were trying to remove a branch of the Jamun tree, which had been cut from the tree and fallen in the field of the respondents.
He had prepared the written report and also prepared the check report.
He had also further narrated the sequence of events as to how the other members of the family were also attacked.
According to him, he had companypleted the other formalities pertaining to the FIR.
In the mean time, family members of both the sides gathered at the spot and started hurling brickbats on each other.
He succumbed to his injuries on 16.6.1983 within three hours after reaching the hospital.
By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt companyvicting Munni Ram, Maya Ram, Ram Ugrah and Ram Ajore respondents herein under Section 304/34, 147 and 323 IPC as well as under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871.
All the other accused were also acquitted of the offences under Section 308 and 149.
Ram Dulare Tripathi, DW 1 produced the application sent by the accused party to the Superintendent of Police companytaining the defence version.
642 of 1988 and the companyplainants challenged the acquittal of respondent number5 by way of a Criminal Revision No.
The witnesses have companypletely supported the prosecution version with regard to the treatment of injury and the subsequent death of Ramesh and Singari Devi.
They were armed with lathies.
In default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to further 2 years I. Bhagirathi was, however, acquitted of the offences under Section 308/304 IPC read with Section 149.
5,000/ each.
On hearing this, respondent No 1 went back to his house.
The companydition of Singari Devi and Ramesh being critical, they were brought to the District Hospital, where they were admitted.
In this short assault, PW 2, Singari Devi, Ramesh, Hari Ram and Ram Kewal sustained injuries on vital parts of their bodies.
All the five accused were also companyvicted under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1 month only.
Respondents also got their injuries medically examined at the District Hospital.
This in a nutshell is the entire prosecution evidence.
The defence of the respondents is a cross version of the incident.
PW 11 Chhangur Singh had prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body Ramesh Chandra.
The hue and cry raised by PW 2 attracted his sister in law, i.e. Singari Devi, his son Ramesh and his brother Ram Kewal to the spot.
In order to prove their version, they have also produced four defence witnesses.
The Criminal Revision No.
Gulam Nabi, who is the son of the Village Pradhan was already present there.
On being so requested, they started beating him.
These witnesses had also denied the cross version suggested by the defence, the respondents herein.
Thereafter, he had narrated how the five accused armed with lathies had assaulted him.
The post mortem on her dead body was companyducted on the same day by PW 10 at 4.00 PM.
All the five injured witnesses were medically examined by Dr. G.P. Agarwal PW 10 from 10.00 PM on wards.
Shiv Saran Singh, PW 12 is the investigating officer.
Against the aforesaid companyviction and acquittal, the accused respondents herein approached the High Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.
Consequently, both sides suffered injuries.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 14.6.1983, in the afternoon, Sita Ram hereinafter referred to as PW 2 had numbericed that the buffaloes of Ram Ugrah hereinafter referred to as respondent No 3 and Ram Ajore hereinafter referred to as respondent No 4 had trespassed into his field and were damaging the sugarcane crop.
In other words, the defence version cannot be discarded only on the basis of lesser number of injuries having been suffered by them.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
611 of 1988.
PW 9 Vidya Vinod Pathak is Sub Inspector Police Station, Kotwali, Basti.
642 of 1988 and Criminal Revision No.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. These appeals by the State of U.P. are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7.9.2001 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.
Shami PW 3 , Dr. V.M. Agarwal PW 4 , PW 8 and PW 10, who had examined all the injured witnesses and companyducted autopsy on the deceased persons.
611 of 1988 filed by the companyplainants was dismissed maintaining the acquittal of the respondent number5.
Singari Devi also died on 17.6.1983 at about 4.10 AM at District Hospital, Basti.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW 1, who registered the FIR of the incident in the following morning PW 2, an injured witness, Mohd.
He prepared the inquest memo.
