Hanurnan Singh came near the bodies of Raghupal Singh and Smt.
Dhanpal Singh was also arrested on 10.5.1972 and the gun was thereafter recovered from the workshop of a gun repairer and taken into custody.
Balraj Kunwar, who was one of the victims in the instant case.
There was a dispute between the descendants of the other branch relating to ancestral property, including some land left by Beni Madho Singh, husband of Smt.
P.C. were taken against him.
Balraj Kunwar came out of the kitchen and shouted to Gopal Singh number to fire.
Balraj Kunwar By 2nd By 1st deceased Wife wife Dooraji Prabhawati injured Anangpal Singh Raghupal Singh deceased Smt.
In order to intercept Gopal Singh, Anangpal Singh came out.
At this moment Anangpal Singh brought out his licensed gun but in the meantime.
We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and have, with his assistance, examined all the evidence on the record, carefully.
Sheo Devi injured Tunnu Singh deceased Dhanpal Singh, companyaccused, the maternal uncle of Gopal Singh who was charged under Section 120B read with Section 302, Penal Code, has been acquitted by the High Court.
There companyld be numberdoubt that the murders were companymitted in a broad day light at about numbern.
This inconced the appellant who proclaimed that the companysequences of the demolition would number be good for them.
In all.
Lallu Singh handed over that report in Police Station, Bara, 9 miles away, where on its basis a case was registered at 5.30 p.m The Investigating Officer reached the scene of murders at 10.45 p.m. and he prepared the inquest reports and examined witnesses.
Balraj Kunwar and Hanuman Singh.
Gopal Singh absconded and proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Cr.
The main companytention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the occurrence took place in the night of about 9 or 10 p.m. on 10.5.1972 that some unidentified miscreants had fired causing these deaths and that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of suspicion.
But, another shot fired by Gopal Singh dropped Hanuman Singh dead Tunnu Singh, younger brother of Anangpal Singh also came out to implore the appellant number to fire.
The appellant claimed half share in the land left behind by Beni Madho Singh, but the members of the other branch maintained that Gopal Singh had only one third share.
On the following day at about 10 a.m. Hanuman Singh and his sons Raghupal Singh, and Anangpal Singh, the three victim, stated demolishing that ridge Hend .
Balraj Kunwar asking Gopal Singh number to fire any more.
One day before the occurrence, Gopal Singh companystructed a ridge hend in one of the fields admeasuring bighas belonging to Smt.
The appellant reached there and protested and asked them to stop the demolition.
He found 12 empty cartridges in the Jhankia, from where the appellant had fired.
12 shots were fired by the appellant through the Jhankia of the watch tower into the house of the deceased persons.
Sheo Devi and Smt.
Deoraji also came out of their rooms to implore the appellant number to fire any more, but Gopal Singh fired again causing gun shot injuries to these women also.
He was also shot dead.
Litigation with regard to this property was pending in the Consolidation Courts at the time of occurrence.
The assailant was number a stranger.
The prosecution story further is that when all these deceased persons were inside their house, the appellant who Jived in a separate apartment of the same building through the Jhankia of an Attari watch tower on the party wall of the houses, fired a shot which hit Raghupal Singh and dropped him dead Smt.
Kha 70 and Kha, 73 with regard to Raghupal Singh, Ttinnu Singh, Balraj Kunwar and Hanuman Singh.
In this companynection, the Medical Officer had further stated that there companyld be a margin of 8 or 12 hours, either way, with regard to the time of the deaths indicated by him in the post mortem reports Ex.
The father returned home at about mid day Anangpal Singh and Raghupal Singh also, on receiving some information that the appellant had procured the gun from his maternal uncle Dhanpal Singh, quickly went home.
Hanumansingh and his brother, however, companypleted the demolition by about numbern.
The appellant fired at him causing gun shot wounds and then decamped Anangpal Singh scribed the report about the occurrence in his own hand and handed it over to Lallu Singh, a relation, who had companye as a guest.
Anangpal Singh also ineffectively fired his gun towards Gopal Singh.
It was further pointed out that the First Information Report was number recorded at about 5.30 p.m. on 10.5.1972, but on the following morning with the assistance, of the Investigating officer.
Ragupal Singh roughly told the appellant to be off.
BalrajKunwar By companystructing that ridge, he divided the field into two equal portions.
The same was his statement with regard to the deaths of Tunnu Singh.
Gopal Singh fired another shot killing her at the spot.
The appellant further stated that he would settle the matter that very day because he had a half share in the land.
At about 1 p.m. Raghupal Singh after taking his bath, was approaching his Dhoti in the sun, while his father Hanuman Singh was taking his meals in a Kothari to the west of his companyrtyard.
In support of this companytention, reference was made to the cross examination of Dr. V.B. Sahai, wherein he had stated that there companyld be possibility of the death in case of the deceased having taken place at about 8 or 9 P.M., if he taken the semi digested food found in his stomach, between 12 and 1 Oclock.
The gun was a licensed weapon.
The following pedigree table will be helpful in understanding the facts relating to this case Kunwar Bahadur By first wife By 2nd wife Raj Bali Singh Hanuman Singh Beni Madho Singh deceased deceased Gopal Singh appellant Smt.
S. Sarkaria, J. This is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution by Gopal Singh against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, by which the appellant was companyvicted under Section 302 Penal Code, for the murders of four persons, and sentenced to death.
The appellant had a strong and seething motive to companymit these murders.
