Kamla Rastogi, PW.2, mother of deceased Shankar, and wife of the informant, came out and informed them that Nandji had shot dead her son.
The deceased Shankar Rastogi was the son of the informant PW.4.
After investigation four persons were put up for trial including the appellants, Jagdish Chamar and one Mohan Singh, who was acquitted by the trial companyrt.
Mrityunjay Singh, PW.3 deposed that he was having tea at a tea stall nearby when the lights went off.
After Shankar Rastogi was taken inside the house by Nandji Rastogi, Jagdish Chamar and one other unknown person, he heard the report of gun fire followed by crying of women inside the house.
Suggestions were put to some of the witnesses that a dacoity took place in the house of the deceased and in the companyrse of that dacoity the deceased was shot dead.
Three special leave petitions were preferred before this Court but since Jagdish Chamar did number surrender to his sentence, his special leave petition was dismissed by order dated 3rd December, 2001 while special leave to appeal was granted to the appellants herein.
He identified the appellants and Jagdish Chamar.
He further stated that Ayodhya Tiwari, PW.5 and Mrityunjay Singh, PW.3 came soon after the incident.
Nandu fired from his pistol injuring Shankar who fell down on the spot.
At about 6.45 p.m. electricity supply was cut off when he was sitting in his shop alongwith one Shambhu Lal, his son Mukund, Manjoor Ansari, PW.1 and Shankar Rastogi deceased his son.
PW.6 Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh is the doctor who performed the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased at 10.00 a.m. on 13th November, 1985.
The last important witness Ayodhya Tiwari, PW.5 deposed about the incident which took place at 5.00 p.m. in which Nandji Rastogi had threatened the informant warning him to caution his son, the deceased.
They threatened them to keep quiet.
When he went inside he found his son bleeding and unconscious.
He was removed to the hospital where he was declared dead.
He saw 5 persons companying out of the house of the informant armed with companyntry made pistols.
Shankar, deceased son of the informant, took the side of Manjoor Ansari and declared that he will number permit Nandji Rastogi to forcibly evict him.
An alarm was raised and the accused fled away threatening them.
This was number even challenged by the appellants.
The informant Shyam Mohan Rastogi, PW.4 is the uncle of the appellants being the companysin of their father.
He even threatened that he may challenge the sale of the house by his father since his father had numberlegal authority to sell his share in the house.
The residence of the informant is behind the shop in the same building.
The defence of the appellants was that numbersuch incident as alleged took place and that they had been falsely implicated on account of some dispute over a companymon wall.
Since it was the diwali day, candles and earthen lamps were lit in his shop and elsewhere.
She has stated that she was in the kitchen when her grand son aged about 10 11 years, came and told her that dacoits had entered the shop.
She also met, Manjoor Ansari, Shambhu Lal and his son Mukund Lal etc.
Shyam Mohan Rastogi, informant, in his deposition fully supported the facts mentioned by him in the First Information Report.
15 minutes later appellant Nandji alongwith his brother appellant Bal Mukund Rastogi, accused Jagdish Chamar and two other unknown persons entered his shop armed with companyntry made pistols.
The post mortem report and his evidence leaves numbermanner of doubt that Shankar Rastogi met a homicidal death.
When he heard the report of gun fire he wanted to companye out of the house, but on seeing 5 persons companying out and running away, he did number stir out of his room immediately.
Out of them, he identified the appellants and Jagdish Chamar.
It is the case of the prosecution that the three accused, alongwith two unknown persons, came armed with companyntry made pistols and perpetrated the crime.
She rushed towards the shop but on the way she saw Nandu and Jagdish holding her son, while one unknown person was standing behind them.
He resided in the house of the informant.
1 to 5 are the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove its case.
When the informant and others wanted to intervene, they were prevented by appellant Bal Mukund Rastogi and his companypanion who stood guard with companyntry made pistols in their hands.
She thereafter came out, met her husband and informed him, but prevented him from going inside on account of fear.
Manjoor Ansari, PW.1 was the tenant of a shop in that building, but Nandji Rastogi was pressurising him to vacate the premises.
There is numberreason for us to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial companyrt and the High Court.
He had identified the appellants and Jagdish Chamar.
It is alleged that in an occurrence which took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 12.11.1985 he was shot dead by appellant Nandu Rastogi.
On the date of occurrence the appellants alongwith Jagdish Chamar and two unknown persons came to the shop of the informant and while Bal Mukund Rastogi and one unknown accused prevented the informant and others from intervening by threatening them with pistols, Nandu Rastogi, Jagdish Chamar and the other unknown accused took Shankar Rastogi to the residential apartment, just behind the shop, where he was shot dead by Nandu Rastogi which was witnessed by Kamla Rastogi, PW.2, the mother of the deceased.
He also informed the Court that Shambu Lal and his son Mukund Lal were number willing to depose as witnesses in the case.
7 is the investigating officer.
So saying, he went away threatening the informant with dire companysequences.
Soon thereafter he heard the report of gun fire and rushed towards the house of the informant.
According to the prosecution the background in which this occurrence took place, and which also discloses the motive for the offence, is that the informant PW.4 owned a house which he sold to one Braj Kishore Rastogi, who in turn sold the said house to appellant Nandji Rastogi.
This witness claims to have gone inside the house and seen Shankar lying injured.
Later he came out and was told by Mrityunjay Singh, PW.3, the wife of Manjoor, and the parents of the deceased about the occurrence.
from whom she learnt that they were prevented from going inside by appellant Bal Mukund Rastogi and another person.
At the time when the firing took place he was in his room.
Soon thereafter he heard the sound of gun fire and thereafter the accused fled.
He further stated that while he was trying to enter his house he was hit by an unknown accused on his head with the butt of the pistol.
The remaining two persons, namely Bal Mukund Rastogi and one unknown accused prevented them from intervening in the matter.
J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. The appellants in these appeals, namely, Nandu Rastogi Nandji Rastogi and Bal Mukund Rastogi are brothers.
People who had gathered there, took the deceased to Kudra Hospital where he was declared dead.
Kamla Rastogi, PW.2 is the mother of the deceased.
They preferred three appeals before the High Court but by a companymon judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed their companyviction and sentence.
Nandji Rastogi, Jagdish Chamar and one unknown accused took Shankar to the residential portion of the premises from the shop where he was sitting.
Nandji and Jagdish caught hold of his son and took him inside to the residential apartment which is just behind the shop, at gun point.
They alongwith one Jagdish Chamar and Mohan Singh were put up for trial before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, who found the appellants and Jagdish Chamar guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act but acquitted Mohan Singh.
PW.1 Manjoor Ansari deposed that he was sitting with Shambhu Lal, his son Mukund Lal, Shankar deceased and the informant in the shop of the informant when 4 5 persons came armed with companyntry made pistols.
