Accused Ramesh and Lal Singh were however companyvicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to one years RI.
Dallu asked the other accused persons to teach a lesson to Shyam Pal and his family members for defaming him.
The High Court numbered that even though in the FIR names of some other persons have been numbered as witnesses, numbere of them had been examined.
Learned trial Judge recorded companyviction primarily relying on the evidence of injured witnesses.
The High Court also numbered another factor which according to it was significant, i.e. the presence of large number of injuries on accused Mohar Singh for which numberexplanation was offered.
The investigating officer had admitted that Mohar Singh was arrested on 6.5.1979.
Shyam Pal PW 2 with his nephew Prempal went to the police station and lodged a report by oral narration on 5.5.1979 at 3.15 A.M. which was taken down by head companystable Baburam PW 4 .
A little later, all the accused respondents along with Dallu entered the house of Shyam Pal.
Reference was made to a decision of this Court in Palak Ram v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 2165 wherein it was numbered that it would number be prudent to base companyviction on a dying declaration made to the investigating officer which is number signed by the persons making it and has number been taken in the presence of two witnesses.
The report of the incident was lodged by Shyam Pal PW 1 on 5.5.1979 at 3.15 A.M. The distance of police station from the place of occurrence is 8 kms.
Nathu Singh PW 2 was resident of another village who claimed to be present at the place of occurence.
The High Court referred to the bed head ticket of the deceased in which it was stated that his general companydition was numbered low when he was admitted in the hospital on 5.5.1979.
On 4 5 79 at about 6.30 M., exchange of hot words and abuses took place between Shyam Pal PW 1 and Dallu at the Chaupal of Nek Ram in companynection with abduction of Dhika.
The High Court found it rather unusual that he was produced for medical examination before a Doctor Shiv Kumar Saxena PW 5 on 5.5.1979 at 5.20 p.m. by a companystable of the Police Station.
54 OF 2001 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which by the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents and set aside the companyviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in .Sessions Trial No.316 of 1979.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Some persons intervened in the matter and Shyam Pal went to his home.
The incident of kidnapping and abduction of Dhika daughter of Dallu by Durgapal brother in law of Shyam Pal PW 1 had taken place about six months before.
In order to further accusations, prosecution examined eleven witnesses.
Dallu himself was a T.B. patient and the High Court found it hard to believe that after alleged exchange of hot words at the Chaupal of Nek Ram, he with all his sons, brother and nephew would have appeared in the house of PW 1 to assault him and his family members.
The High Court reversed the judgment and directed acquittal in the appeal filed by the accused persons.
The incident took place on 4.5.1979 at about 6.30 M. in village Balli Nagla, Police Station Qadarchowk, District Budaun.
None of them was produced by the prosecution to indicate the origin of the incident.
It was also numbered that there was numbercorroboration to the prosecution version by any independent witnesses.
Further Shyam Pal PW 1 had admitted that at the time of exchange of hot words with Dallu at the Chaupal of Nek Ram, two persons namely, Nek Ram and Urman Singh were there who had intervened.
About 6 months before this incident, Durgapal brother in law of Shyam Pal PW 1 had abducted Dhika daughter of Dallu.
Shyam Pal PW 1 , Ram Murti, Sohan Pal PW 3 and their mother Katori Devi sustained injuries.
It was admitted by PW 1 that even numberPanchayat was companyvened.
The investigating officer PW 11 numbered that when he reached the spot in the morning of 5.5.1979 subsequent to the lodging of the FIR at about 3.15 a.m. he had found the deceased, Sohan Pal and Katori to be lying there in injured companydition.
Accordingly, it was held that even there was numberimmediate motive for the alleged occurrence.
When their mother Katori Devi came to their rescue, she was also beaten up.
Nathu Singh PW 2 , Ulnfat Irfan, Prem Pal and others also arrived there.
Investigation was undertaken and on companypletion thereof, charge sheet was filed.
Accused persons pleaded innocence.
Accused Jai Singh, Atar Singh, Mohan Singh, Beer Singh and Baburam were further companyvicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to nine months RI.
He recorded the statement of the deceased Exh.
As mentioned earlier, Lal Singh and Ramesh were armed with spears whereas rest had lathis.
Even numberFIR had been lodged against Durgapal from the side of accused persons regarding that incident.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows One Ram Murti hereinafter referred to as deceased lost his life in the incident whereas three others namely, Shyam Pal PW 1 , Sohan Pal PW 3 and Katori Devi sustained injuries.
P.C. cannot be treated to be the dying declaration.
The High Court also numbered the admitted position that the investigating officer did number follow the instructions companytained in Rule 115 of the U.P. Police Regulations relating to recording of dying declaration.
This according to the High Court cast a genuine doubt about the actual time, place, number of assailants and weapons for the injuries.
The accused respondents Jai Singh, Atar Singh, Lal Singh, Mohar Singh and Beer Singh are the sons of Dallu who also allegedly participated in the incident but died after few days of the incident.
P.C. which cannot be treated to be a dying declaration.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The accused respondents Lal Singh and Ramesh were allegedly armed with spears whereas rest had lathis.
The High Court was of the view that statement of the deceased recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Cr.
The High Court numbered that injuries on accused Mohar Singh were number superficial and some of them were even incised wounds.
The High Court found his presence to be number established.
All the accused respondents then started assaulting Shyam Pal PW 1 and his brothers Sonpal and Ram Murti who were present there.
Accused respondents began to bear ill will against him and his family members on this account.
It was firstly numbericed by the High Court that the motive assigned by the prosecution against the accused respondents did number stand the test of logic.
The High Court also numbered that there was numberexplanation offered as to why the dying declaration was number recorded in the presence of the Magistrate which is the usual companyrse, though he died on 7.5.1979 at about 4.00 p.m. Therefore, the High Court treated the same to be a statement recorded in terms of Section 161 of Cr.
Each of the accused had been companyvicted by the trial companyrt and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC read with Section 149 IPC, three months RI under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC, six months RI under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and two years RI under Section 452 IPC.
The High Court also numbered that Sohan Pal PW 3 who claimed to be an eye witness was the brother of PW 1.
