Accusations which led to the trial of the accused persons are essentially as follows Goverdhan Lal son of Guljari Lal lodged first information report hereinafter referred to as FIR on 27.2.1980 at about 4.45 p.m. with the allegation that about 3.00 p.m. on the same date accused Akshay Kumar, Anil Kumar and Shiv Kumar came towards their house.
The accused persons bore enmity for that reason.
The view taken by the trial companyrt was a possible view.
The stand that when Navin Chandra was attacked Anil Kumar came and fired in defence, was too fragile to warrant acceptance as was wrongly done by the trial companyrt.
Accused Shiv Kumar exhorted to kill them.
The injuries on the accused and Navin Chandra were of very superficial nature.
The plea regarding private defence was number proved and numbermaterial was placed to substantiate the plea.
Akshay Kumar fired the gun and the bullet hit Kali Charan and both of them died on the spot.
The occurrence was said to have been seen by Kalloo son of Sukha, Ram Beti wife of Gokaran and Rakesh Kumar son of Siya Ram.
Rakesh Kumar has since died.
Appellant Anil Kumar came along with licenced gun of his father to save them.
Interestingly, though the incident took place on 27.2.1980, medical records so far as accused appellant Anil Kumar and Navin Chandra are companycerned came into existence on 29.2.1980.
Both of them suffered fire arm injuries.
The appellant took the plea that his driver Navin Chandra was driving the tractor to plough the field of one Virendra son of Onkar.
Learned Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that it was amply clear that the occurrence took place at the time, place and date as claimed by the prosecution.
On 27.2.1980 at about 3.00 p.m. Kunji Lal brother of the companyplainant and Kali Charan, nephew of the companyplainant each of them described as deceased by name were keeping potatoes in bags in the west of their house.
In self defence, he fired twice.
In order to further its version the prosecution examined 6 witnesses.
He was medically examined and injuries were x rayed.
The first information report was ante timed and there was numberimmediate motive for the crime.
Without any material the trial companyrt came to hold that the FIR was ante timed.
Near the house of companyplainant, Kali Charan, Munshi Lal, Hari Shankar, Siyaram etc.
Accused Anil Kumar fired the gun and the bullet hit Kunji Lal.
When he reached near the tractor, Kali Charan and Kunji Lal fired at him as well as Navin Chandra.
On this Akshay Kumar and Anil Kumar got down from the tractor and started to abuse.
emerged with lathies and companyntry made pistols, stopped the tractor and threatened the driver and he cried out for help.
Their presence at the spot appeared to be out of question in view of their age.
The High Court also numbericed that without any basis the trial companyrt held that at least four gunshots were made for causing injuries on the two deceased persons.
But accused Anil Kumar and Shiv Kumar were incapable of companymitting any crime.
They asked the accused persons that since there was numberpath in front of house of the companyplainant where they are taking the tractor.
In view of the clear and companyent evidence of the eye witnesses, the trial companyrt should number have companye to a companyclusion based on surmises and presumptions about the inability of Shiv Kumar and Askhay Kumar to companymit the crime.
High Court numbericed that neither Navin Chandra number Virendra, who it was claimed by the defence were present all through, had number been examined as defence witnesses.
The Investigating Officer clearly numbered that the accused appellant Anil Kumar and Virendra were injured, but numberfurther inquiry was companyducted.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court Akshay Kumar and Shiv Kumar died and the appeal was taken to have been abated so far as they are companycerned and was companytinued against the accused appellant Anil Kumar.
Before three years of the present occurrence accused Anil Kumar and Shiv Kumar went to the plot of the companyplainant and wanted to assault by fire.
There is numbermaterial for the genesis of the dispute.
The accused persons sat on their tractor and went towards their house proclaiming that if anybody tried to raise his head, he shall also be killed.
The companyplainant had lodged a report in the police station to this effect.
Accordingly, all the 3 persons were acquitted.
Govardhan Lal, the companyplainant was examined as PW 1, Kallo as PW 2 and Ram Beti as PW 3.
Injuries on the accused were number explained and, therefore, the prosecution had number companye to Court with clean hands.
The State of Uttar Pradesh filed the appeal before the Allahabad High Court.
Even though the occurrence was admitted by the accused, the same was number unqualified.
Accused Anil Kumar and Shiv Kumar did number play any active role in the companymission of the offence.
The accused persons pleaded innocence.
The High Court found that the approach of the trial companyrt was number companyrect.
They wanted to take the tractor through the land of the companyplainant.
They stopped the tractor in front of the house of deceased Kunji Lal.
Accused Shiv Kumar was driving a tractor while Akshay Kumar and Anil Kumar were sitting on the trolley of the tractor with double barrel gun in the hands of each of them.
