Admittedly, the lands belonging to Mathura Singh had been inherited by Raghubir Singh and his brothers including Atar Singh PW1 but the accused persons got the lands recorded in their names, in respect of which, cases were pending before the Revenue Courts and Criminal Courts, including a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code.
On post mortem examination several injuries on the vital parts of the body of Raghubir Singh deceased were found by PWJ3.
Appellant Awdesh is the son of Ramadhin.
Beni is the uncle of Kedar.
Raghubir Singh died on the spot, as a result of the injuries caused on his person.
The five appellants, along with Ram Pyare, Ram Kishore and Raj Kumar were companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, on 13.3.1976 in Sessions Trial No.
After the death of Mathura Singh, Raghubir Singh, Atar Singh PW1 and Ram Manohar Singh, succeeded to the properties of Mathura Singh as his legal heirs.
Some of them shouted Maro Salon Ko.
It is the case of the prosecution that inspite of the pendency of the dispute, Atar Singh PW1 and Raghubir Singh deceased companytinued to cultivate the lands of Mathura Singh.
Most of the injuries wS,ere on the head causing several fractures.
The injuries of Atar Singh PW1 , Ram Kishan PW3 and Bhagauta were examined by PW4 on 16.12.1974 itself, respectively at 11.00 A.M. 2.00 P.M. and 2.30 P.M. Details of those injuries have been mentioned in the different judgments of the High Court.
Appellant Kedar is the son of Daduwa.
It is an admitted position that the details of the manner of occurrence have been stated in the First Information Report including the names of the witnesses like Atar Singh PW1 , Ram Kishun PW3 .
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, appeals were filed on their behalf, before the High Court.
It appears that P.N. Bakshi and P.N. Harkauli, JJ.
Near the culvert of Loghaura, the appellants were sitting on the culvert armed with lathis.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
30 A.M. within one and half hours of the occurrence, the distance from the police station being three miles.
There was a strong motive on the part of the accused appellants to cause the murder of Raghubir Singh, was number disputed during the hearing of the appeal.
The First Information Report was lodged at 9.
It is said that about two and a half years before the occurrence Raghubir Singh deceased was assaulted by the appellant Kedar and others and in respect of that incident a case under Section 324 of the Penal Code was pending.
Raghubir Singh deceased was doing pairvi in the aforesaid cases.
The deceased, PW1, PW3 and Bhagauta tried to run but the accused came out from the culvert and started assaulting Raghubir Singh deceased .
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the five appellants.
On 16.12.1974 at about 8.00 A.M. Raghubir Singh deceased , Atar Singh PW1 and their servant Ram Kishun PW3 alongwith one Bhagauta were going from their village to Banda.
heard the said appeals.
These witnesses have supported the prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report within one and half hours of the occurrence.
According to Bakshi, J. the charges leveled against all the eight accused persons had been established beyond all reasonable doubt and on that finding he upheld their companyviction and sentence.
When Atar Singh PWJ , Ram Kishun PW3 and Bhagauta tried to save Raghubir Singh deceased , they were also assaulted They raised alarm and thereafter the appellants ran away.
Raghubir Singh deceased used to do pairvi in those cases.
Whereas according to Harkauli, J. the prosecution had failed to prove the charges leveled against them beyond ail reasonable doubt and on that finding he set aside the companyviction and sentence passed against them by the Trial Court.
But Ramadhin, Beni, Daduwa and Sarju got their names fictitiously recorded over the lands belonging to Mathura Singh.
According to the prosecution case one Mathura Singh was the maternal grand father of Raghubir Singh deceased and Atar Singh PW1 .
