The Sessions Judge found that Ram Gopal was guilty of an offence Under Section 302 for companymitting the murder and passed death sentence upon him.
Ram Autar, Raghunath, Nand Ram, Lallu and Balram were companyvicted of offence Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment, on that companynt.
A proceeding was pending against Chhatrapal and others Under Section 107 of the CrPC.
They were said to be companying on a bicycle which was pedalled by Sukkhi and Chhatrapal was taking his seat on the rod.
21 September, 1966 was the date fixed for the heating of the ease.
If the assailants had spears they would have used those weapons particularly when Chhatrapal was encircled by them.
In the year 1964 one Kandhai was arrested for theft at the house of Ram Manohar, the prosecution witness by Chhatrapal, Ram Gopal and Jadunath and other prosecution witness, and a case Under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code was companymenced against Kandhai, Kandhai also brought a companynter case for an offence Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Another case was filed by Rampal brother of Chhatrapal against Ram Autar for demolition of a certain wall.
Therefore if the witnesses who spoke about the presence of Basdeo and Asharfi companyld number be believed.
In 1959 Chhatrapal and Ram Manohar were said to have been beaten and a criminal case was started against Basdeo, Nandram, Hazari brother of Ram Gopal, Rikhnath, brother of Chandra Bhal, Lalta father of Asharfi and Jadunatb, Asharfis brother and Bishun Dayal, uncle of Asharfi.
The High Court found that the relations between the nine respondents and Chhatrapal were strained and there were several litigations between them, On 18 September, 1966 Chhatrapal along with his servant, Sukkhi proceeded to Sitapur for companysulting his lawyer.
Ram Bilas was an eye witness.
Raghunath put it in a piece of cloth and along with others rushed away.
The accused in that case bore a grudge against Chhatrapal.
In the year 1965 Chhatrapal filed a suit for specific performance of a companytract of sale against Ram Saran and Ram Autar.
The High Court found it difficult to accept the version of Sukkhi and said that if some of the assailants did have spears with them there was numberreason why they did number make full use of them specially when the victim for whom they had been waiting for quite long had been surrounded by them and was at their mercy.
The other respondents who were hiding in the fields rushed out and surrounded Chhatrapal.
Chhatrapal lived very neat the houses of the respondents.
It would be wrong to hold that they were eyewitnesses and to accept their evidence that the respondents were there.
There was a further case of abduction of Pushpa Devi, sister of Ravindra Singh.
In the year 1966 there were proceedings Under Section 107 of the CrPC between Ram Autar, Raghunath, Chandra Bhal, Lallu and others on one side and Chhatrapal, Rampal and Sukkhi and others on the other.
The High Court held that Sukkhi stated at the trial that he and Chhatrapal got off from the bicycle near the lane where Asharfi and Lallu were seated.
Sukhis evidence was that Ram Gopal cut Chhatrapals head with the banka all the respondents surrounded Chha trapal and assaulted him.
Among the respondents Ram Gopal, Basdeo and Nandram are brothers.
The number of injuries on the lower portion of the body belied that there were as many as 9 armed assailants.
In companynection with that case Chhatrapal engaged a lawyer Saxena at Sitapur.
It was number far from the field of Chunnu Chamar which was towards numberth west of the lane where Asharfi and Lallu took their position.
Sukkhi further said that spears, ballam and bhala were pierced in the face of Chhatrapal.
That is why Sukkhis evidence is significant that though Bhalla and Ballam were used as piercing weapons they were used on the face and neck and number on the stomach or the chest.
Sukkhi dropped his bicycle in the lane and ran for his life towards numberth.
Ram Autar was a prosecution witness in that case.
The High Court found that if assault was made by all the nine persons and out of nine two had spears there was numberreason why the spears would have been used in a manner as number to cause any injury on the body below the neck.
The High Court found that there were litigations between the parties from the year 1959 to the year 1966.
Asharfi and Lallu came and challenged them.
The circumstances of the case were found by the High Court to point out that numberspears were used and that is why Basdeo and Asharfi were introduced by the witnesses for the version of use of spears.
He gave 5 or 6 blows on the neck of Chhatrapal and severed his head.
Ram Gopal was armed with Kanta.
Sometime between 4 and 5 p.m. Chhatrapal and his servant Sukkhi came along from Selumau side.
Asharfi was armed with a spear of the other four Chandra Bhal had a kanta, Basdeo a spear, Ram Gopal a banka and Nandram a lathi.
There was a search at the house of Chhatrapal and Bal ram was a search witness.
When they reached the lane they got off the bicycle.
Ram Autar exhorted Ram Gopal to cut the head of Chhatrapal.
Of the prosecution witnesses Ram Manohar, Sukkhi, Jagdish and Chandra Bhal were eye witnesses The Court examined three witnesses Moha mmad Ayub, Ram Bilas and T.N. Saxena.
Ram Autar, Raghunath and Bal ram were each armed with lathis and they took their position inside the sugar cane field of Pushpu Devi towards the south of the lane where Asharfi and Lallu were.
They all took position inside the field of one Gaya Arakh.
They used various weapons.
Chhatrapal fell on the ground.
Lallu gave a lathi blow on his head.
Two of the respondents Asharfi and Lalla on the date of occurrence took their seats in a lane by which it was expected that Chhatrapal would pass.
The companytract of sale was made by Ram Saran in favour of Chhatrapal, but Ram Saran sold the property to Ram Autar.
Lallu was armed with lathi.
18 September, 1966 was Sunday.
Before the Investigating Officer, Sukkhi said that when the cycle reached the lane, Asharfi and Lallu were scrapping grass.
Lallu was armed with a lathi and Asharfi with a Bhala and they stood up and thereupon Chhatrapal and Sukkhi left the cycle and in a hurry left.
Ram Autar is the father of Raghunath.
Chatrapal also ran in that direction.
The accused in that case were sentenced in the year 1961 to various terms of imprisonment.
The Sessions Judge found Ram Autar, Raghunath, Basdeo, Nand Ram, Chandra Bhal, Asharfi, Lallu and Balram guilty of an offence Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life The Sessions Judge also found Chandra Bhal, Asharfi and Basdeo guilty of an offence Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and companyvicted and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 16 October, 1967 of the High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench acquitting eight respondents on appeal against the judgment dated 21 July, 1967 of the Sessions Judge, Sitapur and rejecting the reference dated 21 July, 1967 made by the Sessions Judge to the High Court on the capital sentence passed on Ram Gopal the remaining respondent.
