9 11 12 and 14 the neighbours of the deceased who in one part or the other corroborated the eye witnesses.
fifty paces away from this house is the house where the deceased harihar lived suddenly a shout was heard to the effect that lal singh should be dragged out.
he forgets however that there are two distinct alternatives 1 that he saw them at the scene of the offence after the incident and believed they had seen it and 2 that though the witnesses had seen it like the other neighbours they preferred number to figure as eye witnesses and circumscribed the scope of their evidence to what they had seen after the assault.
as eye witnesses they did number come out in their evidence as eye witnesses and that fact showed that p. w. 1 had tried to introduce them falsely as eye witnesses.
there was an exchange of abuses between them in the companyrse of which appellant karnesh was said to have threatened that he would number rest until lal singh was done to death.
where p. ws.
having thus tried to do away with the dead bodies appellants kaushal and mahendra scraped the blood.stained earth where lal singh had fallen as also the drops of blood which had fallen on the way.
of these jitendra p. w. 1 the son and brother of harihar and lal singh respectively virendra p. w. 6 his companysin and girendra p. w. 8 a boy of 14 years of age and the younger brother of lal singh deposed to the assault by the appellants on both the deceased.
on hearing the shout these witnesses and lal singh came out.
on being threatened that the witnesses would also be shot they ran away and stood at some distance.
chhetrapal then fired at harihar with his gun jugal kishore gave anumberher blow with his spear in the chest and the rest beat him with bankas and lathis.
harihar also died on the spot.
on the 7th and 8th he recorded further statements.
in his evidence also w. 1 has mentioned that these persons and a few others were present at the time of the incident.
it appears that statements of these witnesses were recorded late as these and other residents presumably on account of fear of reprisals or to avoid having to figure as witnesses had fled from the village.
but he was able to recover the half burnt body.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 19 1967 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench at lucknumber in criminal appeal number 118 of 1967 and capital sen tence number 11 of 1967.
it also shows that since 1950 there has been intermittently civil and criminal litigation between the parties the last of such litigation before the incident in question being in respect of an incident which took place on april 3 1966 when appellant ram kumar charged the deceased harihar and lal singh and witnesses jitendra and virendra and two others with rioting and witness virendra in turn filed a cross complaint against the appellants and some others.
the evidence however shows a long standing enmity between the members of the branch of sobaran singh one of the sons of jhabha singh on the one hand and the rest of the descendants of jhabha singh on the other.
p. rana for the respondent.
the prosecution however did explain that these persons were number examined either because they had been won over by the opposite side or because some of them had failed to identify the appellants from the identification parades held for them which according to the prosecution indicated that they had been won over.
1 6 7 8 14 and of certain other persons.
the other five appellants took lal singhs body to the bathis of p.w.
and yet these persons were number examined.
w. 1 jitendra started on cycle to the kotwali six miles away and lodged the f.i.r.
gopalis evidence was however the only direct evidence as to the scrapping of the blood stained earth by two of the appellants but that evidence was number relied upon by the high companyrt on the ground that his name was number mentioned in the f.i.r.
the argument which companynsel strenuously urged was that though independent eye witnesses were available they were pur posely excluded and only the family members were examined as eye witnesses.
k. garg s. c. agarwala d. p. singh and a. k. gupta for the appellants.
santosh kumari p. w. 7 the daughter of harihar deposed only to the assault on harihar in the house.
in either event p. w. 1 cannumber be said to have falsely tried to usher them in the f.i.r.
of harihar.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 213 of 1967.
as soon as lal singh came out appellants krishna chhetrapal and karnesh simultaneously fired at him whereupon lal singh fell on the ground.
according to the prosecution at about 1 p.m. on june 5 1966 lal singh was irrigating his field with canal water when appellants l8 sup.
on june 20 he recorded the statements of raghubar p. w. 9 and gopali p. w. 12.
the witnesses saw appellants krishna and chhetrapal armed with guns appellant karnesh with a pistol rain kumar and jugal kishore with spears appellants kaushal and mahendra with banks and the rest with lathis.
four of them namely karnesh kumar krishna kumar kaushal kumar and chhetrapal were awarded death sentence and the rest imprisonment for life.
the ten appellants on being companyvicted under ss.
the evidence on which the prosecution mainly relied was that of the four eye witnesses.
9 and 11 one chhuta bhurji alha singh lakhan singh paragu parsadi sishupal girdhari kachhi and some other men were said to be witnesses.
appellants kailash jugal kishore kaushal and mahendra followed by chhetrapal with his gun lifted harihars body to the field of one sita ram where they set fire to it.
besides this evidence the prosecution examined raghubar jeet gopali and surat singh p. ws.
that night he recorded the statements of p. ws.
at about 6 45 p.m. inspector jaswant singh p. w. 17 started for the scene of offence reaching there at about 7 45 p.m. the fires were put out but lal singhs body had practically been burnt out with the result that the inspector companyld companylect only his bones and ashes.
9 and 11 were referred to in the f.i.r.
302 and 201 read with s. 149 of the penal companye were awarded various sentences.
at the material time the two deceased along with the mem bers of their family and the appellants lived in village nir in district hardoi and except for appellants jugal kishore and his brother kailash narain they are close relations their companymon ancestor being one jhabha singh.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of allahabad which companyfirmed the companyvictions and sentences passed by the sessions judge hardoi in respect of the murders of lal singh and his father harihar.
c.1.168 10 karnesh and avdesh diverted the water into their field.
as eyewitnesses.
1 6 and 8 were in the main room of the chaupal where lal singh lived and lal singh was in a room nearby.
4 abdul bari and burnt it there on a heal of companydung cakes.
in this companynection he relied on the f.i.r.
and his statement was recorded late.
at about 5.30 that evening jitendra virendra and girendra p. ws.
five of these appellants namely chhetrapal kaushal mahendra kailash and jugal kishore then ran to harihars house where appellant jugal kishore struck harihar with a spear in his face and then appellants kaushal and jugal kishore dragged him to where lal singh had fallen.
