PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 were examined as eyewitnesses and they deposed in support of the prosecution.
The appellant was arrested along with 47 live cartridges in Village Bechu Ka Purwa a hamlet of Phoolpur Mauri which is at a distance of three miles from the scene of occurrence at 10.30 p.m. The inquest was held and the rifle and empty cartridges found at the place of occurrence were sealed and were despatched and the postmortem of the deceased was companyducted by Dr B.K. Bhardwaj.
Charge sheet in the said case after investigation was submitted on July 18, 1973.
His statement, therefore, was tendered under Section 288 of the old Criminal Procedure Code being Ext.
The High Court in companysideration of the materials on record inter alia came to the finding that the report of the said incident had been lodged at 8.30 p.m. on June 22, 1973.
114 of 1973 and sentence of life imprisonment for the aforesaid companyviction.
The Police Constable Ram Naresh Singh was an eyewitness.
PW 3 and PW 4 and Ram Naresh were residents of Village Dewar Patti, which is about 2 or 3 furlongs to the south of the grove of Ahamad Husain.
A written report of the said incident was sent to the Police Station, Baghrai by Mohammad Yaqub, Head Constable PW 1 and the case was registered and initial investigation was companyducted by Shri Amir Hasan Zaidi, Station Officer of Police Station, Baghrai.
The said officer reached at the spot but thereafter the investigation was handed over to one Shri Lakhpat Singh PW 13.
The High Court having companye to the finding that the prosecution has proved by leading clinching evidence that the accused had companymitted the murder, upheld the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
910 affirming the companyviction under Section 302 IPC against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, dated November 5, 1976 in Sessions Trial No.
Subsequently there were changes and at the relevant time this squad companysisted of Head Constable Mohammad Yaqub, Constable Ram Dhani Singh, Constable Ramanand Pandey and Constable Mohammad Yusuf, the companyvicted appellant.
910 of 1976 PW 3, Mohammad Yaqub a Head Constable PW 1 asked Mohammad Yusuf the appellant, and Ramanand Pandey deceased to bring Chaukidar from Naya Purwa.
The submission made before the High Court that the incident had number been witnessed by any of the eyewitnesses was number accepted and the presence of PW 1 and PW 5 companyld number be doubted as they were members of the anti dacoity squad.
17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the case.
The doctor on companyducting the postmortem had found gunshot injuries badly damaging the vital parts of the body.
A. No.
The squad reached Village Bihar at about 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, the squad on reaching the grove of one Ahamad Husain From the Judgment and Order dated September 6, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
The short facts of the prosecution are that an anti dacoity squad was sent from Police Lines, Pratapgarh to Police Station, Baghrai.
On June 21, 1973, this squad was in Village Ramgarh Banohi.
In the appeal it was companytended on behalf of the appellant that the first information report was antedated, but such submission was rejected by the High Court.
It was scheduled to move for Phulpur on June 22, 1973.
It transpires from the evidences of the eyewitnesses that the incident had taken place at about 50 or 60 steps from the grove and that there was altercation between the deceased and the appellant and the appellant fired shots at the deceased Ramanand Pandey.
The original squad companysisted of Head Constable Ram Iqbal Tewari PW 7 and three companystables Ram Jatan Rai, Radhey Shyam Pandey and Ram Prasidha Pandey.
Ka 36.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This appeal is directed against judgment dated September 6, 1983, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Magistrate passed an order requiring the A.P.P. to put up first information report or to submit a report as to why the same had number been received.
On the first information report the signature of the Circle Inspector was dated June 26, 1973.
The companytention made before the High Court that as the prosecution had failed to establish the origin which led to the firing, the benefit should be extended to the accused, was, however, number accepted by the High Court in view of the positive evidence given by PW 1 Mohammad Yaqub, PW 3 Ahamad Husain, PW 4 Chintamani and PW 5 Ram Dhani.
In the meantime, the accused fired three companysecutive shots with his rifle at the deceased Ramanand Pandey as a result of which the said Ramanand Pandey died on the spot.
When the said two persons had gone about 50 60 steps away from the grove, there was exchange of abuses between the accused and the deceased and thereafter the other persons of the squad rushed towards the side along with some other persons who had arrived at that place.
Hence, this appeal.
Though he was examined in the companymitting companyrt, but he died on September 11, 1973.
