Further, Virendra received seven injuries and Ram Prasad had received two injuries.
Custodial sentence of the respondent was limited to the period undergone by him in custody i.e. about 8 months.
The prosecution has number established as to how these injuries were sustained.
But accused respondent Virendra Prasad was number prepared to part with it.
Accused Ram Prasad fired his rifle which did number hit anybody.
The search party companysisted of ASI, Gokaran Nath Pandey hereinafter referred to as the deceased , ASI R.P. Tripathi PW 4 and, head companystable Anand Shanker Tiwari PW 5 amongst others.
Both the accused persons entered into the western room.
The plan to raid the house was chalked out and the raiding party companysisted of policemen and public men.
Investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was filed.
Accused respondent Virendra Prasad snatched the rifle from the hands of his father, and started firing on the members of the raiding party.
One officer lost his life while performing his official duty.
Deceased caught hold of Ram Prasad and dragged him outside the room to the balcony.
Police officials Ram Pal and Dinanath were deputed to proceed ahead to get the door opened.
Per companytra, learned companynsel appearing for the accused respondent Virendra submitted that the prosecution version itself goes to show that Ram Prasad fired one gunshot when the police personnel were chasing his sons, he was dragged from the roof to balcony.
The Trial Court on companysideration of the evidence on record found the accused persons guilty.
While Ram Prasad was companyvicted to undergo imprisonment for one year each for the offences numbered above, accused respondent Virendra was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, five years and one year respectively for the offences attributed to him.
Hearing the shouts of PW 6 that the accused were running away, the deceased and the two injured PWs 4 and 5 chased them.
Members of the third group went behind those two companystables.
Twenty two persons were examined to further the prosecution version.
In all he fired seven rounds.
Because of gunshots, deceased, PWs 4 and 5 received injuries.
They entered the eastern room where the gambling was going on and produced the search warrant to accused Ram Prasad.
Thereupon the members of the second and third groups entered into the house of the accused.
When the search was in progress, both the accused persons and Gorakh slipped out of that room and ran towards the western room.
Gorakh disappeared and managed to escape.
It companysisted of circle inspector O.P. Agnihotri, PW 6, the deceased, injured PWs 4 and 5 and others.
The first party was to stay outside the house, the second party was to be on the ground floor of the house and the third party was to go upstair.
Both accused Ram Prasad and Virendra Prasad were making companylections.
The raid was companyducted after lot of meticulous planning, because the accused Ram Prasad was known to be a numberorious anti social.
They were divided into three groups.
While accused Ram Prasad was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 27 and 28 of the Arms Act, 1959 in short the Arms Act , accused respondent Virendra was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 IPC and 28 of the Arms Act.
Though the State had filed appeal against the two persons including respondent Virendra who had faced trial, the special leave petition so far as the other accused i.e. Ram Prasad was dismissed by order dated 20.10.1997.
Any leniency by awarding sentence of smaller term would be number only illegal but also inappropriate.
This was a case where the protectors of life and properties of citizen and those who had to maintain law and order were attacked by criminals operating gambling dens.
They companyered the doors of the accused and gave necessary signal to the raiding party.
On reaching the first floor of the house the members of the third group found 11 persons engaged in gambling.
All the 11 persons engaging in gambling were required to stand up to facilitate their search by the police officials.
J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the respondent Virendra Prasad was guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and number under Section 302 IPC as was companytended by the prosecution.
Background facts giving rise to the present appeal are essentially as follows On getting information that accused Ram Prasad and his two sons accused Virendra and one Gorakh were operating gambling den in his house, S.K. Astik PW 6 organized a raid after obtaining search warrant.
