After companypletion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons.
It was stated that an alarm was raised by Parasnath Dubey because of which Ram Kripal, Ram Bahal, Parasnath and Lalta Prasad and other reached there and saw the occurrence.
He was examined in the trial as PW 7 and he proved the number of injuries suffered by the deceased on 2.11.1981.
It was also stated in the said information that first of all Vijai Pal stabbed him with a knife and other accused persons thereafter started beating him with lathis and that as a result of the said assault, he had fallen on the ground.
He has stated that he companyld number immediately get any mode of companyveyance to take his father to the Police Station or to the hospital and he had to wait for some time for getting a companyveyance to enable him to shift his father to the Police Station which they reached at about 6.30 p.m. when report was recorded.
Charges under Section 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC were framed against all the accused persons for having formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the companymon object, all of them companymitted murder of deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey.
While said Ram Abhilakh Dubey was standing at the crossing of Setha Road at the shop of Ram Kishore Barayee for taking betel, the accused persons, all of a sudden, came there whereupon the accused Shobhanath and Triveni Prasad instigated other accused persons, namely Doodhnath, Vijai Pal both sons of Ram Kumar , accused Knasu son of Doodhnath at which all of them attacked him.
The Investigating Officer who submitted the chargesheet as Ext.
The aforesaid criminal case was registered on the basis of an information submitted by Parasnath Dubey who was PW 1 companytending inter alia that on 02.11.1981 at about 5 p.m., he alongwith his father, Ram Abhilakh deceased, were returning back to their home from Lalganj Bazaar.
After the death of said Ram Abhilakh Dubey, on 3.11.1981, the case was companyverted to under Section 304 IPC and entries were made accordingly.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal passed by the High Court, the present appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh which was entertained and on which we have heard the learned companynsel appearing for the respective parties.
Dr. D.R.Singh examined Ram Abhilakh Dubey when he was taken to the Primary Health Centre and he prepared an Injury Report.
He companyducted the aforesaid examination which is after the occurrence i.e. at about 7.15 p.m. Dr. A.C. Joshi who has companyducted the post mortem was examined as PW 5 and the post mortem report was exhibited as Ext.
The victim was examined in the Primary Health Centre at about 7.15 p.m. i.e. within 45 minutes of the incident being reported to the Police.
The defense also produced three witnesses in this case in order to prove the formal paper filed on their behalf to establish enmity and motive because of which they are falsely implicated in this case.
A report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station Gauriganj District Sultanpur on 02.11.1981 at about 6.35 p.m. Ram Abhilakh Dubey later on succumbed to the injuries i.e. on 3.11.1981 at 8.30 p.m. The deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey who received injuries on 02.11.1981 in the aforesaid incident was taken to the hospital at Gauriganj where he was medically examined and an Injury Report was also prepared by the doctor examining him at the hospital Gauriganj, who looking at the grievous nature of injuries received by him sent him to the District Hospital, Sultanpur as his companydition was deteriorating.
Ka 10.
The informant examined himself as PW 1.
The defense case was that both PW 3 and PW 6 namely Lalta Prasad and Ram Bahal Singh respectively came in the witness box in order to help the companyplainant Parasnath Dubey because they together formed one party in the previous litigation and criminal cases are pending between them and the accused party.
The companyplainant and the informant Parasnath Dubey PW 1 was examined as an eye witness to the occurrence.
PW 1, the informant who was the son of the deceased in his statement has clearly stated in detail as to how the incident has taken place and as to why he did number intervene when his father was being assaulted by the said accused persons.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty to the charges framed and claimed to be tried During the trial the prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove the occurrence and the guilt of the accused persons in murdering the deceased Ram Abhilakh Dubey.
The High Court has doubted the entire prosecution case on the ground of the aforesaid delay of about an hour in reporting the incident to the Police.
Consequently, it was held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and companysequently all the accused persons were acquitted.
It was pointed out on the other hand the aforesaid four papers namely Inquest Report, Injury Report, Post mortem Report and General Diary indicate different injuries beginning from two injuries extending to four injuries and then companypleted in five injuries.
After the death of Ram Abhilakh who died in the hospital on 03.11.1984 at about 8.30 p.m., the post mortem examination was done on 4.11.1981 at about 4.10 p.m. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a First Information Report was prepared at the Police Station and entries in the General Diary were made.
It was also held by the High Court that all the three witnesses who are said to be eye witnesses namely PW 1, PW 3 and PW 6 are all chance witnesses and that they do number belong to the place of occurrence and that they are interested witness in giving favourable evidence for roping in the accused persons with whom all of them had long standing enmity.
According to their statements, they both witnessed the occurrence.
Besides him, there were two other eye witnesses who were also named in the FIR namely Lalta Prasad PW 3 and Ram Bahal Singh PW 6 who were also examined in support of the case of the prosecution.
On receipt of the information, the Police started investigation.
Having held thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the order of companyviction and sentence against all the accused persons.
He was number sentenced to jail and was directed to be in Children Home.
During the companyrse of investigation, the accused persons were arrested.
Ka 20 was examined as one of the prosecution witnesses.
So far as accused Hansraj alias Hansoo is companycerned, since he was aged about 16 years, therefore the benefit of the Children Act, 1960 was extended to him.
So far as accused Hansraj is companycerned as he was found to be almost 16 years, an order was passed that instead of jail he be sent to children home.
The statements of all the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the CrPC were recorded.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court after companysidering the materials on record set aside the order of companyviction and sentence passed against the accused respondents and acquitted all of them of the aforesaid charges.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of companyviction and sentence, the accused persons filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was heard.
