The other accused also attacked the victim party with their respective weapons.
In the assault, the three sons of PW1 sustained injuries and fell on the ground and Ganga Singh, brother in law of PW1 sustained firearm injuries.
The attack resulted into the death of two sons of the informant i.e. Shivshankar and Avadhesh on the spot while another son i.e. Yogendra breathed his last on the way to the hospital.
The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined two eyewitnesses, namely, the informant Bhola Singh PW1 , father of all the three deceased persons and Baijnath Singh PW 2 and five formal witnesses i.e. PW 6 Dr.O.P.Singh and P.W.7 Dr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, PW 5 the Investigating Officer and PW 4 the Sub Inspector and PW 3 Constable Ram Manohar Maurya, who prepared the chick FIR and General Diary entry pertaining to registration of the case.
The locus of the appellant is that he is the brother of the informant Bhola Singh PW1 who died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and also paternal uncle of the three deceased persons Sons of informant Bhola SinghPW1 .
The I.O. filed charge sheet Ext.
The High Court recorded companyplete disagreement with the findings given by the Sessions Judge and allowed the appeals of the accused by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted them of the charges and also rejected the Reference for companyfirmation of death sentence of the accused Ramashraya Singh and Kamala Singh.
On 7 10 1994, the I.O. arrested Ramchandra Singh and Ramsaran Singh and recorded statements of witnesses.
During the pendency of trial, one accused, namely, Ramchandra Singh died.
Ka 33 that all the injuries were caused by fire arms and were sustained within a period of 6 hours.
We have heard Shri Viswajit Singh, learned companynsel for the appellant and Shri Ranjit Rao, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Shri Pramod Swarup, learned senior companynsel for the accusedprivate respondents herein.
Ka 1 was lodged at 9.15 a.m. on the same day at Haldharpur P.S. wherein PW1 stated that the incident had taken place on account of enmity over land dispute between the parties.
Since the accused have denied the charges and prayed for trial, the case was companymitted to the Court of sessions.
Dr. Jitendra Kumar Singh PW7 companyducted post mortem examination on the bodies of the three deceased persons.
Sub Inspector Riyayatullah Khan, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, held inquest of the dead bodies, prepared site map and recorded the statement of the informant.
By his reports Ka 34, 35 and 36, he expressed the opinion that the incident might have occurred at 8.00 a.m. and that the intestines of all the three deceased companytained semi digested food material and the injuries suffered by the victims were of firearms and there was numberblunt object injury.
While Ramchandra Singh exhorted his sons to eliminate the whole family of the victim, the accused Ramashraya Singh and Kamla Singh opened fire with guns while Satyendra Singh and Brijendra Singh attacked with katta upon the three sons of Bhola Singh PW1 .
During the ongoing tussle, PW1Bhola Singh ran into the village and raised hue and cry whereupon the assailants took to their heels.
Dr. O.P.Singh PW 6 who companyducted medical examination of the injured Ganga Singh opined in his report Ext.
At the instance of the informant PW1 , a First Information Report Ext.
The injured Ganga Singh was then sent for medical check up to the Primary Health Centre.
Dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by the High Court, the brother of the deceased informant filed the present appeals by way of special leave.
Aggrieved thereby, all the five accused persons preferred criminal appeals before the High Court.
The facts in brief, as unfolded by the prosecution case are that Bhola Singh PW1 the informant is a resident of village Kanso, district Mau and on 4th October, 1994 at about 8 am when his sons namely Sheo Kumar, Avdhesh and Yogendra all three deceased were repairing the cattle trough in presence of one Ganga Singh, brother in law of the informant and one Baijnath Singh PW 2 , the accused Ramashraya Singh, Satyendra Singh, Brijendra Singh along with their father Ramchandra Singh armed with deadly weapons came to the Baithka of the informant Bhola Singh with the companypany of Kamla Singh and Ram Saran Singh hurling filthy abuses.
Constable Muharrir Ram Manohar Maurya PW 3 prepared the chick report Ext.
Ka 4 and registered the case as Crime No.219/94 under Sections 147,148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 IPC.
It ought number to have rejected the ocular evidence of the informant PW 1 Bhola Singh, the ultimate victim and father of the three deceased persons.
Ka 32 against all the six accused persons.
On the other hand, the accused have produced four witnesses in their defence.
He then companylected blood stained roll of clay and plain clay and prepared memo.
It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant before us was number a party before the Courts below and the present appeals have been preferred by him with the leave of this Court.
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.2701 and 5802 of 2003, dated 07.12.2004, by which the High Court has allowed the appeals filed by the accused respondents herein and acquitted them for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC .
