He married Smt.
The trial Judge has rejected the evidence of Sridhar P.W. 2 on the ground that he had a field of three or four biswas only, which was lying parat, and there was numberreason for him to be in the field so early merely to uproot kanams and to cut grass.
The dead bodies were taken to the mortuary at Gonda and were examined by Dr. J. Chandra.
The trial Judge however took the view that as Lalla was the next door neighbour of Bachchu Lal, and so he is bound to have sympathy, at least for Bachchu Lal.
An oral report Ex.
Cots were obtained from the village and Jokhan and Munna were taken to Dhomariya Dih which was at a distance of about a mile.
Dharamrajis marriage to Nabhu Lal.
Ka 29 dated May 11, 1965 of the field in question in favour of Nabhu Lals brother in law appellant Bhagwati and, as has been stated earlier that gave rise to litigation between the appellants and the deceased because of Bachchu Lals stand in regard to the forefeiture of Smt.
Dharamraji executed a sale deed Ex.
Dharamraji forfeited her right to Sheo Prasads fields and it is number in dispute that the companytroversy was pending on the date of the alleged incident.
Bachchu Lal was, according to the prosecution, in possession of the land all along and was cultivating it.
Bachchu Lals case was that, after her remarriage.
Dharamraji inherited his fields which however companytinued to be cultivated by Bachchu Lal, Smt.
It would therefore appear that there was every justification for the allegation of the prosecution regarding Smt.
Jokhan died on the way near Jamadarpura.
Dharamraji supported that application by filing her companysent on November 15, 1965.
A day earlier, Bachchu Lal made an application for mutation of the fields in his name on the basis of his relationship with Sheo Prasad.
Lalla P.W. 1 , Sridhar P.W. 2 and Matai alias Matadin, who were ploughing their fields nearby, rushed to the place of occurrence.
Dharamraji married Nabhu Lal some time after the death of Sheo Prasad.
The prosecution numberdoubt led evidence to prove the alleged dying declaration of Munna, to his father Bachchu Lal P.W. 5 , and it may be that Munna had received such injuries that he would have found it difficult to speak, but it cannot be said that the evidence on the record was such as to prove that it was impossible for him to inform his father who his assailants were.
Appellant Bhagwati was arrested the same day, but appellant Shital was number found until July 5 and appellant Ram Avadh surrendered on July 11.
It has been admitted by all the appellants that Smt.
They began to beat Jokhan and Munna, who cried for help.
Bhagwati also made a similar application after execution of the sale deed in his favour and Smt.
They say the appellants beating both Jokhan and Munna in the field of Sheo Prasad.
On July 2,1967, half an hour after sunrise.
After they had ploughed it a little, it is alleged that appellants Bhagwati, Shital and Ram Avadh came there.
Ka 29 of the land in favour of Bhagwati on May 11, 1965.
When Jokhan fell down.
Nabhu Lal was the brother of the wife of appellant Bhagwati, and the prosecution has led evidence to show that Smt.
Thereafter she executed a sale deed Ex.
They were then taken in ekkas to police station Nasirganj, which was at a distance of about seven miles from the place of occurrence.
Sheo Prasad died, and his widow Smt.
Munna ran away to the adjacent field of Molbu, but the appellants brought him to Sheo Prasads field by dragging him by his leg and beat him again.
The witnesses went near Jokhan and Munna and found that they were about to die.
A case was registered at the police station and it was investigated by Station House Officer Taj Bahadur Singh P.W. 10 .
Bachchu Lals sons Jokhan and Munna went to Sheo Prasads field, which was adjacent to their own field, to plough it.
Appellant Bhagwati was asked about the marriage but while he admitted that Nabhu Lal was his wifes brother, he gave the answer No Sir, I do number know to that question.
Bhagwati and Ram Avadh were armed with lathis, while Shital was armed with a spear.
To say the least, that was a most unreasonable finding for the fact that Lalla was a neighbour went to show that he was a natural witness and was attracted to the scene of occurrence because he was cultivating his own field at the time of the incident.
The trial Judge also lost sight of the fact that the appellants were number able to advance any reason why Lalla should have implicated them falsely in such a serious offence.
Dharamraji thereafter went away to Basti as she married Nabbu Lal, who was the brother in law of appellant Bhagwati.
It was alleged by the prosecution that one Sheo Prasad was the first companysin of Bachchu Lal P.W. 5 .
N. Shinghal, J. This appeal by Bhagwati, Shital and Ram Avadh, sons of Salaru, is directed against the appellate judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated December 18, 1970 setting aside their acquittal by Civil and Sessions Judge Gonda Bahraich of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentending them to imprisonment for life for that offence.
On the other hand the trial Judge lost sight of the evidence of Dr. J. Chandra, who was examined in the companymitting companyrt, and had stated that the injuries of the deceased companyld have been sustained at 6 or 7 a. m. on the day of the incident.
Lalla P.W. 1 , Sridhar P.W. 2 and Matai alias Matadin reprimanded the appellants, and they ran away towards the village.
Ka 1 was lodged by Lalla P.W. 1 , at the police station at 8.45 a.m. Munna was sent to Sadar Hospital, Gonda, but he also succumbed to his injuries on the way.
