The appellant is the son of Lallu Ram who was also one of the accused.
The appellant Nirmal Kumar alias Goggy was tried along with one Shyam Lal and four others for offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201 and 120B read with Section 302 and 449 of Indian Penal Code.
Shyam Lal and Lallu Ram had two more brothers namely Gaya Prasad and Raghubir Prasad.
Accused pleaded number guilty and Pushpa Devi, one of the accused stated under Section 313, Cr.
The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and the case entirely rested on the evidence of P.W. 3.
It is only Nirmal Kumar, the present appellant who has preferred this appeal pursuant to the special leave granted by this Court.
The learned Judges of the High Court have bestowed companysiderable length of discussion on the question of law namely putting preliminary questions to a child witness and whether she was in a position to answer the same and whether an oath companyld be administered to her.
A lantern was burning there.
Roop Rani, one of the deceased was aged 60 years and was in possession of some properties.
Ram Lal died before the trial companymenced.
The S.H.O. reached the scene of occurrence and according to him, he recorded the statement of P.W. 3, the child witness, held the inquest, prepared the site plan and sent the dead bodies for postmortem.
She, however, stated that lantern was burning and she was lying with her mother.
The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge companyvicted the appellant and Shyam Lal under Section 302 read with Section 120B, I.P.C. and sentenced the appellant to be hanged till death and the other accused Shyam Lal to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
Roop Rani had numberchild.
Gaya Prasad died long time back.
Even in his deposition he did number mention about the presence of P.W. 3 number about P.W. 3 having told him any names.
After the death of her husband, Roop Rani, out of love and affection, brought him to live with her and also helped him financially to set up a tea shop.
Roop Rani who was one of the deceased, was the widow of Gaya Prasad.
Push pa Devi, another accused is the wife of the appellant.
On the night of occurrence it is stated that all the five deceased persons and P. W. 3, daughter of Dwarika Prasad, aged about seven years, were sleeping in the house.
5,000/ .
Gaya Prasad and Smt.
In the report numbernames are mentioned.
Both the Courts below have held that there was motive to companymit the murders.
Shiv Rani appeared as a witness as P.W. 4.
Shyam Lal has number preferred any appeal to this Court.
The other brother Raghubir Prasad is also said to have died long back.
P.C. that dacoity was companymitted in that house and the sons of Shiv Rani i.e. Naresh, Mahesh and Dinesh used fire arms and she also received some fire arm injuries.
Because of this, accused persons who were already in possession of companysiderable agricultural land, had apprehension that she would give away the property to Dwarika Prasad and his family members.
Another deceased Dwarika Prasad was companynected with the family of Roop Rani as her companysin brother.
He went to the Police Station and gave a report to the S.H.O. who registered the case.
By a companymon judgment the High Court companyfirmed the companyvictions and sentences awarded by the trial Court.
Shiv Rani and three children Naresh, Mahesh and Dinesh were living in a separate house just in front of the house where the occurrence took place.
His widow Smt.
P. W. 3 saw the occurrence in the light of the lantern.
Sitara Devi, another accused in the case is the daughter of Ram Lal, another brother of Lallu Ram and Shyam Lal.
The gist of accusation against the appellant and other accused was that on the intervening night of 14th and 15th February, 1983 they companymitted the murder of five persons inside the family house of the deceased situated in Mohalla Acharya Tola in the town of Lakhimpur Kheri, a district headquarter in the State of U.P. Among the five persons killed, two were children.
She named only three persons namely the appellant, Shyam Lal and Ram Lal before the trial Court.
The learned trial Judge has administered oath to her and then he numbered certain answers that have been given by her.
The accused persons are alleged to have entered into the house from the front portion and inflicted injuries on all the five deceased persons and killed them.
After companypletion of the investigation the challan was filed.
This is said to be the underlined motive for the companymission of the offence.
She was also examined by the doctor.
Both of them preferred appeals to the High Court and a reference was also made for companyfirmation of the death sentence.
The witness did number give any answer for a further question but on the persistent questioning, she came foward with an answer saying that she lived with her father.
The doctor who companyducted and postmortem found incised injuries and opined that the deceased persons died due to shock and haemorrhage.
Surkhawati, another accused is the daughter of Lallu Ram, Shyam Lat, one of the accused is the real brother of Lallu Ram and uncle of Nirmal Kumar.
One Chandra Shekhar, adovate, who was living in the neighbourhood, on hearing the cries, visited the place of occurrence and found five dead bodies.
To another significant question she stated that she was living with her grandmother.
The accused were arrested and according to the prosecution at the instance of Shyam Lal, the weapon was recovered.
They were also sentenced to some amount of fine and various terms of imprisonment under other companynts.
