They were closely related.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows In the evening of 20.3.1979 at about 6.00 pm Km.
What appears to have weighed with the High Court to doubt versity of prosecution version is the introduction of a witness i.e. Munni Devi regarding the motive.
As the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held.
Sheo Lal and Suresh were armed with Lathis and Surendra was armed with a knife.
Sharmi PW 4 was going to attend the call of nature.
Each was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC respectively.
A lamp was also burning at the main door of the house.
There were companytradictory observations and numberreason has been indicated to discard the version of the injured eye witnesses.
Ratipal was also possessing a torch in his hand.
It was submitted that the incident has number occurred in the manner alleged and the FIR was ante dated.
The High Court accepted the defence version that the motive was number established and the accusations were also number established.
The deceased, Krishnapal, and his brother Vijayapal were relaxing and smoking Bidis on the Chabutara, which abuts their house.
PW2 was an injured eye witness.
The written report is Ext.
The injury appeared to be manufactured one.
At about 8.00 P.M. Sheo Lal accompanied by Suresh and Surendra came to the house of Krishanapal, deceased.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the companyclusions of the High Court are absolutely unsustainable.
The Doctor has number numbered the companyor of this injury.
The High Court numbered that so far as the motive is companycerned the only witness is PW 4.
In the same breath the High Court in another place has held that the accused persons to molest PW 4 at a particular moment took her to the Arhar field and this was done with her prior companysent.
The hue and cry raised by the deceased attracted Ratipal P.W1 , Chandrapal P.W.2 , Km.
Having made the companyplaint they came back to their house.
The trial companyrt placed reliance on the evidence of four eye witnesses PW 1 to PW4.
As a result of the injuries sustained, Krishanapal fell down and died instantaneously.
Chandrapal was also attacked with lathis when he tried to intercede.
The appellant accused in each case had questioned companyrectness of the judgment rendered by learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in ST Case Nos.
It was scribed by Rampal and was lodged at P.S. Bidhnoo at 11.15 P.M. He was accompanied to the police station by Ratipal, Chandrapal and Rampal.
It is alleged that at the relevant moment Surendra and Suresh accosted Km.
The companyclusions are based on presumption and surmises.
Sharmi W.4 and some other family members to the spot.
He has made the entry with regard to this injury in the out door patients register.
She was moving few steps ahead of Km.
A burning lantern was also hanging near the grass cutting machine.
The accused persons withdrew thereafter.
Accordingly, it directed acquittal.
One of the prime reasons indicated by the High Court to discard the prosecution version is that in a dark night the possibility of identification was number there.
Munni rushed to her rescue.
As numbered above separate appeals were filed by each one of the accused persons which were disposed of by the companymon judgment directing their acquittal.
190 of 1979 and 212 of 1979.
The trial companyrt recorded companyviction.
Chandrapal P.W.2 was sent from the police station to the Primary Health Center, Bidhnoo for medical examination of his injuries.
The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Vijaypal P.W.3 .
He was escorted by companystable Mahipal P.W.5 , for that purpose.
On her return to the house, Km Sharmi P.W.4 narrated the incident to her maternal uncle Krishanapal, the deceased in the incident, and Vijaypal P.W.3 .
Additionally, accused Surender was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
Both the brothers, went to the house of accused Sheo Lal, and made a companyplaint about the shameful behavior of his son and nephew.
They told her to accompany them into Arhar field and with that intent they also held her hands.
He stated that by writing fresh he meant that the injury was 2/3 hours old.
The stand of the accused appellant before the High Court was that the motive suggested is clearly unacceptable as the parties are inter se related and it is improbable that the accused persons will tried to molest their companysin PW 4 in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
It is significant to numbere that there were four of the witnesses and some of them were injured in the incidence.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the High Court.
The doctors evidence was discarded on the ground that his testimony was of poor quality and does number inspire companyfidence.
At this, both the accused persons took to their heels.
The source of light for identification was number mentioned in the FIR.
Sharmi.
On the alarm raised by her Km.
When this doctor was examined in companyrt, the injured was number present before him.
His injury was examined on 20 3 1979 at 11.30 p.m. His medical examination was companyducted by Dr. A.K. Shukla P.W.8 .
He had sustained lathi injuries.
His evidence has been discarded on the ground that the injury sustained by him was a typical bruise.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
It was prepared by P.W. Lallan Singh, Head Moharir.
Immediately on their arrival near the deceased, they started hurling abuses and said that since they are maligning his family, inflicted lathi injuries upon the deceased and Surendra attacked him with knife.
By the impugned judgment two appeals were disposed of.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the respondents.
The chick is Ext.
