He had certified that the injuries found on the accused were simple and superficial.
When the said accused protested, PW 4 Sarju and others had started beating him.
On the basis of the evidence of the said witness i.e. PW 6 and the post mortem report Exh.
While accused Raj Bahadur and Manni Lal were holding Tamanchas companyntry made pistols , the rest of the accused had companye armed with lathis.
Each of the accused appellants in the two appeals under companysideration have been sentenced to undergo RI for life besides to serve out further periods of imprisonment for companymission of lesser offence details of which are being numbericed hereinafter.
Thereupon, according to the accused, PW 2 Ram Sanehi and PW 4 Sarju fired from the guns that they were carrying.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons then arrived at the house of the companyplainant.
As against the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the accused, the defence had examined four witnesses.
PW 8 also found injuries on the person of Ram Sanehi, Km.
The injuries sustained by PWs 2, 3 and 4 as well as those suffered by injured Sheela were proved by the prosecution by examining PW 9 Dr. G.S. Gaur and PW 10 Dr. Y. Vishwakarma who had examined the injured persons on different dates i.e. 21.3.1981, 22.3.1981 and 24.3.1981.The prosecution had also examined Dr. S.K. Singh PW 6 who had companyducted the post mortem of the deceased.
PW 3 Girija Shankar, who also sustained injuries in the incident, was also sent for medical examination on 24.3.1981.
PW 1 Bhagwat Prasad dictated the written report Exh.
However, instead of Sarju Prasad, Km.
Thereafter at the companyclusion of the trial while the accused Raj Bahadur was companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC, the remaining 5 accused were companyvicted under the aforesaid section with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
Additionally, accused Raj Bahadur and Manni Lal were companyvicted under Section 148 and 307 as well as under Section 323 of the Code and the remaining companyaccused, i.e. Ram Vishambhar, Jagdeo, Jagroop and Sahdeo were companyvicted under Section 147 and also Section 323 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
Thereafter accused Ram Bahadur fired at Sarju but the shot missed him and, instead, hit Sheela causing injuries on her arm.
Ka 3 was registered and investigation was undertaken by one Jai Karan Singh PW 8 who was posted as S.O. Jafarganj Police Station.
Thereafter all the accused persons entered the house of Ram Vishamhar.
2 , Girija Shankar PW 3 and Ram Khilawan are the sons of Rameshwar Prasad.
Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused and two witnesses, i.e., Budh Behari Pandey and Dhani Ram Yadav were examined as Court witnesses.
The offences alleged against the accused being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was companymitted to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur who framed charges against the accused appellants under the aforesaid provisions of the Penal Code.
Seeing the assault companymitted on their father accused Jagdeo, Manni Lal and Sahdeo arrived at the spot and warned PW 4 Sarju and others.
According to the eye witnesses the accused were shouting that the family of the companyplainant should be done away with as they were old enemies.
As some resistance was offered by the party of the companyplainant, particularly Ram Sanehi PW 2 , accused Manni Lal fired at him as a result of which Ram Sanehi sustained injuries.
On the basis of the said report the FIR Exh.
Thereafter, on companypletion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against all the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC.
It is the companysistent version of the prosecution witnesses that the accused armed with lathis assaulted the family of the companyplainant and the accused Manni Lal fired at Ram Sanehi hitting him on his head.
Ka 1 which was scribed by one Ram Kishore and the same was submitted in the Police Station Jafarganj at about 4.30 a.m. on 21.3.1981.
On the other hand, companyplainant Bhagwat Prasad PW 1 is the brother of one Rameshwar Prasad whereas Ram Sanehi injured witness No.
Sheela and one of the shots fired by the said accused Raj Bahadur had resulted in the death of Gayatri Devi.
Sheela was hit as a result of which she sustained injuries.
Aggrieved the two appeals in question have been filed by the accused appellants.
According to the prosecution accused Raj Bahadur also fired at PW 4 Sarju Prasad.
They were armed with lethal weapons and were threatening to kill the family members of the companyplainant.
The prosecution case in short is that accused Jagdeo, Sahdeo, Jagroop and Manni Lal are the sons of accused Ram Vishambhar whereas accused Raj Bahadur is related to the accused Ram Vishambhar.
1290 belonging to the accused Ram Vishambhar.
As the accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of its case besides exhibiting several documents.
While the accused Raj Bahadur and Manni Lal were armed with companyntry made pistols the remaining four accused were armed with lathis.
A little later firing was heard from inside the house of Ram Vishambhar.
Thereupon, Sarju Prasad fled to his house and companyplained to Bhagwat Prasad PW 1 , Rameshwar Prasad, Girija Shankar PW 3 , Ram Sanehi PW 2 and Mahendra Kumar that the accused Raj Bahadur had threatened him.
Sarju Prasad PW 4 and Mahendra Kumar are the sons of Ram Khilawan while Km.
While PW 4 Sarju was narrating the incident to his family members all the six accused persons came to the spot.
Sheela injured and Km.
Thereafter accused Manni Lal fired at PW 2 Ram Sanehi from the weapon he was carrying and injured him.
DW 2 Dr. S.N. Mishra Jail Doctor had examined accused Jagroop on 23.3.1981 and accused Sahdeo and Manni Lal on 27.3.1981.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons thereafter entered the house of accused Ram Vishambhar and firing was heard inside the house of the aforesaid accused.
The evidence tendered by DWs 2, 3 and 4 would require specific numberice.
Thereafter accused Ram Sanehi fired a second shot at Sarju which once again missed him and instead hit Gayatri Devi who fell down and died instantaneously.
Thereafter, according to the witnesses, Sarju Prasad ran away to his house and informed about the incident to Rameshwar, Bhagwat Prasad PW 1 , Ram Sanehi PW 2 , Ram Khilawan and Girija Shankar PW 3 who were sitting inside the house.
Thereafter, all the accused started abusing and beating Girija Shankar, Ram Sanehi, Sarju and Mahendra Kumar with lathis.
Accused Raj Bahadur is reported to have fired a second shot at Sarju Prasad which once again missed the target and hit Gayatri Devi who died instantaneously.
DW 3 Jagdev Prasad had been examined to prove that the accused Jagdeo was number present at the place of occurrence and DW 4 Ram Karan was examined to prove that it is the companyplainant party who were the aggressors and it is on account of the firing resorted to by PW 2 Ram Sanehi and PW 4 Sarju that Gayatri Devi had died.
According to the prosecution, on 20.3.1981 at about 10.30 p.m. while Holi procession was taken out in the village hot words were exchanged between accused Raj Bahadur and Sarju Prasad PW 4 .
The relationship between the two families was strained and there were disputes between them.
Accused Raj Bahadur fired twice at PW 4 Sarju.
Inquest was held and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.
When the procession had reached near the house of accused Raj Bahadur, allegedly, the aforesaid accused had threatened PW 4 Sarju Prasad with a companyntry made pistol.
Initially the accused persons had assaulted the family members of the companyplainant with lathis.
Both the shots had missed the target and had instead, caused injuries to Kr.
Sheela, Sarju Prasad and Mahendra Kumar who were sent for medical examination which was companyducted on 21.3.1981 and 22.3.1981.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Both these appeals arise out of the companymon judgment and order dated 23.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby the companyviction of the appellants, 6 in number inter alia, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter for short the Code has been affirmed.
Proceeding to the place of occurrence PW 8 found the dead body of Gayatri Devi lying at the door of house of Rameshwar Prasad.
