It also appears from the record that though all the four respondents were said to have fired from their weapons, only two wounds of entry were found on the chest of the deceased.
The medical evidence is to the effect that on the back of the deceased, there was only an exit wound and there was numberentry wound on the back of the deceased.
Though the deceased attempted to run away, he was prevented by respondents Ram Lakhan and Ram Kumar from doing so by pushing him in the canal.
So far as the witness Daulat Singh PW 2 is companycerned, the High Court doubted his presence because if he had been present on the spot, the respondents would number have spared him.
Daulat Singh PW 2 has deposed that while going to village Haswa, the deceased had requested him to accompany him.
Shyampati to village Haswa from where they were to board a bus to Fatehpur.
The accused thereafter ran away and an alarm was raised by Ram Bahadur.
There was numberother reason for Daulat Singh PW 2 to accompany the deceased on the fateful day.
In that case, the deceased Rudrapal Pandey was doing parvi on behalf of Daulat Singh PW 2 .
Thereafter, Ram Lakhan and Ram Kumar fired one shot each from their pistols.
So far as Ram Bahadur PW 1 is companycerned, the specific allegation made by him was that the respondent Shiv Kumar fired at the deceased from his gun hitting him on his back, meaning thereby that he fired at the deceased from behind.
This was because he was the person who is said to have companymitted the murder of the uncle of respondent Shiv Kumar.
The case of the prosecution is that on 26.2.1980, Rudrapal Pandey deceased requested his nephew Ram Bahadur PW 1 to take his wife Smt.
The deceased Rudrapal Pandey was only his pairokar.
The High Court has further numbericed that Smt.
The respondent Shiv Kumar was armed with a gun while the remaining three were armed with pistols.
The failure of the prosecution to examine Smt.
The respondents Shiv Kumar and Amar Singh fired one shot each from their gun and pistol respectively.
The Trial Court relying upon the testimony of PW 1 Ram Bahadur and PW 2 Daulat Singh companyvicted the respondents.
Apparently, the alleged eye witness Ram Bahadur PW 1 had number seen the actual occurrence and on finding an injury on the back of the deceased, he stated that the gun shot fired by the respondent Shiv Kumar hit the deceased on his back.
When they reached near village Aswan Baxpur, all the respondents came armed with firearms and surrounded the deceased.
PW 1 Ram Bahadur does number say that Daulat Singh PW 2 was with his uncle when he left his house.
The motive suggested by the prosecution was that one Barjor Singh, uncle of the respondent Shiv Kumar, had been murdered and in that case Daulat Singh PW 2 and his nephew Surajbali were the accused.
This was the enmity which resulted in the murder of Rudrapal Pandey.
According to the prosecution, while proceeding towards village Haswa, the deceased Rudrapal Pandey requested Daulat Singh PW 2 to accompany him.
Shyampati was number even examined as a witness.
They proposed to go to Fatehpur to companysult a doctor since the said Smt.
Later, the deceased Rudrapal Pandey followed them.
The evidence on record disclosed that he was standing five to six paces away from the deceased.
The evidence on record also discloses that there was numberobstruction between Daulat Singh PW 2 and the respondents which may have prevented the respondents from firing at him.
Shyampati was suffering from headache etc.
Shyampati at the trial was another circumstance which supported the prosecution case.
The case of the respondents is that the whole story about Smt.
Shyampati and PW 1 Ram Bahadur going to village Haswa is false and that neither of them were present when the incident took place.
P.SINGH, J. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1761 of 1980 dated 19.3.1999.
