The inquest has been manipulated and there are five blanks therein which make the whole prosecution case doubtful.
Gyanendra Singh kept his gun in the Jeep near Dharam Pal Singh and went towards the grove to urinate.
Therefore, they have large number of enemies and the whole case of the prosecution becomes totally improbable.
3749 of 2003 and Government Appeal No.
5809 of the gun of the accused had fallen on the spot.
It was also alleged that the chap Serial No.
The use of weapons was number established.
However, their acquittal for the offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was upheld.
DDA 6162 repaired.
Virendra Singh D.3 fell near the Jeep after receiving fire arm injuries.
384/2000.
Fact and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under First Information Report No.239/2000 was lodged on 31st May, 2000 at 3.20 P.M. by Atar Singh PW.1 at Police Station Bahedi, Distt.
Bareilly.
The informant, Atar Singh PW.1 also received injuries in the incident.
4648 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No.
Rajendra Singh PW.2 and Satyapal Singh also witnessed the incident.
Dr. K.K. Saxena PW.5 , Radiologist companyducted an X Ray examination of Attar Singh PW.1 on 31.5.2000 and found three small rounded radio opaque with metallic density and F.B. Shadow on middle of left thigh and right arm.
Chandra Pal A.3 and Balwant A.2 were companyvicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and were awarded death sentence and a fine of Rs.5,000/ and, in case of failure to deposit the fine, six months imprisonment in addition.
Nem Chand Gangwar A.1 assaulted Natthu Singh D.1 with his Kanta.
All the three injured persons were taken to the hospital at Bahedi.
The prosecution examined the injured witness, who would number spare the real culprits and involve someone falsely.
Both the said accused were further companyvicted under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/ each and, in default of payment of fine, for a further period of six months R.I. The High Court directed that all the punishments would run companycurrently.
Rajendra Singh D.2 and Dharampal Singh D.4 received serious injuries by fire arm and became unconscious.
Thus, all these things lend a seal of assurance number only to the presence of eye witnesses at the place of the incident, but also to the participation of the appellants in the crime.
Dr. Nar Singh Bahadur PW.4 examined Virendra Singh D.3 on 31st May, 2000 itself at 5.40 p.m. and had numbered fire arm injures on his body and opined that the injuries were fresh in nature.
Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants in all three appeals, has submitted that the place of occurrence is number free from doubt for the reason that numberblood stained earth had been lifted from the place near the Jeep and numberblood stains were found in the Jeep.
Neither were any bullet marks on the Jeep number had any pellets been recovered from the Jeep or the nearby area.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Sessions Court, three appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No.
Had the incident occurred as alleged by the prosecution, the Jeep should have got some bullet marks as Rajendra Singh D.2 and Virendra Singh D.3 were sitting in the Jeep.
Natthu Singh Raghunath Singh D.1 was a history sheeter and a large number of criminal cases were pending against him.
Brahm Swaroop A.5 and Balwant A.2 were further charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act hereinafter referred to as Arms Act .
During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case.
The prosecution did number examine any independent witness.
Virendra Singh D.3 and Dharampal Singh D.4 were involved in criminal cases and facing trial in the said cases.
Brahm Swaroop A.5 took away the rifle of Rajendra Singh D.2 and Jagdish Baggar A.6 took away the licensed gun of Gyanendra.
The incident had occurred at the residence of Natthu Singh Raghunath Singh D.1 as an entry has been made in this regard in the General Diary at about 11.00 A.M. and the investigating officer Raj Guru, Inspector, P.S. Bahedi PW.10 had gone to that place.
At about 3.00 P.M., Nem Chand Gangwar A.1 and his sons Balwant A.2 and Chandra Pal A.3 , Jogendra A.4 , Brahm Swaroop A.5 and Jagdish Baggar A.6 armed with deadly weapons came there and started firing, after surrounding these persons with their respective weapons.
After companysidering the whole case and appreciating the evidence, on the companyclusion of the trial, the Sessions companyrt vide judgment and order dated 5th August, 2003, in Sessions Trial No.
The prosecution did number disclose the genesis of the case companyrectly.
He died on the spot.
The Magistrate received the Special Report after five days.
It stated that his grand father Natthu Singh Raghunath Singh had an enmity with the family of one Nem Chand Gangwar and on that date he along with Natthu Singh Raghunath Singh, Rajendra Singh Goli, Virendra Singh, Dharam Pal Singh, Rajendra Singh and Satyapal Singh had companye to Bahedi to get the Dynamo of their Jeep No.
Virendra Singh was standing in front of the Jeep.
6180 of 2003 were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
855 of 2001 acquitted Brahm Swaroop A.5 and Jagdish Baggar A.6 of all the charges under Sections 148, 302, 149, 307, 396, 424 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Atar Singh PW.1 companyld number tell names of the father of Brahm Swaroop A.5 as well as of Jagdish Baggar A.6 though the same had been mentioned in the FIR lodged by him.
Dr. Anshu Kumar Agrawal PW.6 had examined Atar Singh PW.1 on 31st May, 2000 itself at 3.50 p.m. and had numbered multiple pellet wounds with surrounding charring over anterior surface of left thigh middle part and a single pellet wound over the anterior surface at right arm lower part.
Natthu Singh Raghunath Singh was sitting at the companynter of the repairing shop, while Dharam Pal Singh and Rajendra Singh were sitting in the Jeep.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th May, 2005, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No.
6180 of 2003, along with Criminal Appeal Nos.3749 of 2003 and 4648 of 2004, against the judgment and order of the Sessions companyrt, Bareilly dated 5th August, 2003, in Sessions Trial No.
855 of 2001 in Crime No.
An FIR had initially been registered under Section 396 I.P.C. and, in view of the fact, that one of the victims died on the spot and another died enroute to the hospital, had the prosecution given the companyrect version of events, the FIR ought to have been registered under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. along with other Sections.
