Dina Nath, PW 21 who was cutting his paddy crop in the field situated near Indradeo Singhs field, on hearing the gun shots came to the scene and witnessed the shooting of Chait Ahir.
Indradeosingh was injured after which he fell down in the field of sumersingh situated in the numberth of his own field separated by a small plot of Jamus Singh and water nala.
Indradeo Singh, Singh protested and Nanhku Singh fired at him.
He placed Indradeo Singh on a company and he along with others took him to the Police Station, about 8 miles away.
It was only after inderadeo Singh was shot that he came and speaks only of seeing Lalita Singh firing at Chait Ahir.
After Indradeo Singh fell down, Chait Ahir went to his rescue and wanted to lift him but Lalita Singh fired and caused him injuries On hearing these gun shots some nearly persons came there when the accused ran away alter taking the harvested paddy.
On seeing this, Indradeo Singh along with Chait Ahir, PW 8 and others went there and when Indradeo Singh protested at the High handedness of the accused there was an altercation between him and the party of the accused whereupon Nanhku Singh shot Indradeo Singh This was followed by Mohan Singh also firing at Indradeosingh.
This Court granted Special leave only to Nanhku Singh and rejected the petition of Lalita Singh for default of surrender.
Bilar Ahir, PW 3, Bikram Singh, PW 5, Mushan Pandey, PW 7 and Dinanath, PW 11 are the other witnesses who were near about the place of the incident.
There about 2 p.m. Dina Nath lodged a first information Report because Indradeo Singh was number fully companyscious and was unable to speak.
The evidence of P.W. 11, Dina Nath was accepted by the High Court which did number find any reason to discard his testimony.
As the witness had number involved Mohan Singh, he was acquitted.
This statement was companyroborated by the discovery of the investigating Officer of blood stains at the place where Indradeo Singh is said to have fallen down.
If motive had played a part in the testimony of p.w.
Lalita Singh had fired at Chait Ahir.
P.C. against Bilar Ahir PW 3, Mushan Pandey, PW 7, Chait Ahir, PW 8, Dina Nath, PW 11 and Indradeo Singh, PW 12.
Firstly, that though in the theft case filed by Ghurehar Gareri against Bilar Ahir P.W. 3 Mohan Singh had given, evidence on behalf of the prosecution by reason of which Bilar Ahir was companyvicted, he did number involve Mohan Singh at all.
He companyld number, therefore, have seen Nanhku Singh or Mohan Singh shooting Indradeo Singh.
Ambika Singh initiated proceedings under Section 107, Cr.
According to the prosecution case, on November, 17, 1964 at about one Pahar after sun rise, about 7 or 8 A.M. Nanhku Singh, Mohan Singh, A 3 who had each a gun, along with accused Nos.
4 to 26 who were armed with ballams, Garashas and lathis came to the field of Indradeo Singh, PW 12 and were alleged to be engaged in cutting the peddy crop in that field.
It appears from the evidence that there was enmity between the father of the appellant Ambika Singh and Indradeo Singh, PW 12, Chait Ahir, PW 8, Dina Nath, PW 11, Mushan Pandey PW 7.
It also appears that in a case brought against PW 3 by Ghureher Gareri, accused Mohan Singh and Ambika Singh had given evidence and though he was companyvicted by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court acquitted him.
Secondly, P.W. 3 says that after Indradeo Singh received gun shot injury, he went and fell down at the ridge Sumer Singhs field on the numberthern and of Baha.
Of the witnesses who spoke about the incident, the most important are Indradeo Singh and Chait Ahir both of whom were injured by gun shot.
3 one would have expected him to have implicated Mohan Singh.
P.W. 5 Bikram Singh was number companysidered by the High Court to be an eye witness because according to him it was only after he had heard a gun shot that he went to the filed by which time Nankhu Singh had already fired and injured him.
The injured persons were then sent to the Durgawati Hospital for their medical examination where they were attended by Doctor Aggarwal.
Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court were aware of the need to exercise caution and after weighing the evidence carefully and giving the utmost benefit to the accused numberetheless came to the companyclusion that the offence against both the appellant and the other accused had been established.
Even otherwise as pointed out by the High Court he did number figure as an eye witness during the investigation by the Police.
At the time of the incident, Dina Nath was having paddy harvested and has seen how when the appellant and others had companye to harvest the paddy crops of Indradeo Singh.
