Jagbandhan deceased No.1 , father of Arun and Anirudh alongwith 10 other persons were prosecuted therefor.
Appellants, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses are agnates being descendants of one Badan Singh.
Before us an application being I.A. No.6979 of 2005 for impleading Suresh Chand PW 1 , Sat Kumar and Nem Singh, sons of deceased Randhir and Arun Anirudh sons of deceased Jagbandhan has been filed.
He was assaulted by the accused persons in presence of Suresh Chandra PW 1 , Mithan PW 5 and Ajab Singh PW 6 .
At that time, they started cutting soil from the ridge of their field to which Jagbandhan objected.
They fled and took shelter in the field of Bakhty.
Proceedings under Sections 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had also been initiated by and against both the parties.
Prosecution examined five eye witnesses i.e. PWs.
Jagbandhan deceased No.1 , Dhum Singh PW 7 and Gandhari wife of Ajab Singh PW 6 were companyvicted, but others were acquitted in that case.
We may place on record tat accused Tilak Ram A 1 has since died.
PW 5, Mithan is also an injured eye witness.
Another application being I.A. No.4945 of 2005 has also been filed purported to be in terms of Order 47 Rules 1 6 of the Supreme Court Rules for acceptance of the said settlement between the parties.
They intercepted him.
Satbir assaulted him with Bhala.
Ajab Singh PW 6 , Sachitanand and Janmajay, upon hearing the cries, ran towards the scene of occurrence.
Mithan PW 5 , who was working in his field was also attracted by the numberse.
However, the High Court on an appeal preferred by the said four persons acquitted them.
Police station Dodhar is situated at a distance of about 2 miles from the place of occurrence.
His wife Kishan Devi PW 4 was cleaning the buffalo.
First information report was lodged at about 1.15 p.m. Postmortem report shows that Jagbandhan suffered nine anti mortem injuries which are as under Incised wound 13 cm x 1/2 cm x brain deep on the right side of scalp, 10 cm from right ear and 1/4 cm.
They returned with Dalbir A 5 Dansahai A 6 and Harvir A 7 .
The genealogical chart of the family is as under Badan Singh Ratiram Kallu Khajan Lalsingh Mulchand Shadi Ramasrey Hemraj Atarsingh Sachida nand Jagban dhan Randhir De ceased Raghunath Sukh bir deceased Arun Anirudh Nem Singh Sat kumar R 5 R 6 Dhumsingh Kaleyram Mittan number dead Injured PW5 number dead Virender Pal Abhimanu Satyapal Jasvir Suresh chand Janmejai Complai nant Dallu Neki Baljit Hukma Lax manTilakram A 1, number dead Vedu Harvir Jagmeg Dansahai A 6 Dalbir A 5 Satbir Vakil A 2 Lekhpal A 3 Brahmpal Rajpal A 4 Enmity between the two parties was a long standing one.
Sachitanand and Janmajay were, however, number examined.
Tilak Ram A 1 and his three sons Satbir A 4 Valil A 2 and Lekhpal A 3 left the field extending threats.
Randhir was sitting on his company in his gher.
Accused persons therafter went towards the Village.
The other villagers attempted reconciliation between the parties.
Accused Tilak Ram, Dalbir and Harvir were armed with ballam Vakil and Lekhpal were armed with Balkari and Satbir and Dansahai were armed with Bhala.
On seeing the accused, Randhir deceased No.2 tried to run away to save his life but was chased, surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons.
Accsued Satbir, Vakil and Lekhpal chased them.
A Panchayat was companyvened on 21st March, 2005 and allegedly a companypromise/ settlement has been arrived at amongst the parties, pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof the accused did number support the prosecution case and all the accused named in the said FIR 138/2000 giving rise to Session Trial No.38 of 2002 prosecution witnesses herein were acquitted.
Meanwhile Tilak Ram reached there and asked the accused persons to leave him and proceed to the village to do away with Randhir.
To this the accused persons started abusing him.
The incident in question took place on 27th November, 1997 at about 11.00 a.m. According to the first information report which was lodged by Suresh Chandra PW 1 , at about 10.00 a.m. he alongwith his companysin Jagbandhan deceased No.1 and brother in law Ajab Singh were working in their fields.
1, 5 and 6 in relation to the first incident i.e. murder of Jagbandhan deceased No.1 and PW 4 and PW 7 in relation to the second incident i.e. murder of Randhir deceased No.2 .
Tilak Ram, Satbir, Vakil and Lekhpal were also ploughing their field.
It started with murder of one Laxman brother of Tilak Ram A 1 and father of Dalbir A 6 as well as Danaahai A 5 .
Deceased No.1 Jagnandhan was smoking a Hukka at that time.
Upon being informed by Mithan PW 5 that accused had gone towards the village to do away with Randhir they rushed towards the gher of Randhir where they were told about the occurrence.
The second part of the occurrence resulting in death of Randhir was proved by his widow Kishan Devi PW 4 and Dhum Singh PW 7 .
The First Information Report lodged in companynection with the said incident was registered as FIR No.138/2000 under Sections 147, 302, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
Both the learned trial judge as also the High Court totally relied upon their testimonies.
He died on the spot.
Randhir deceased No.2 intervened.
The first part of the prosecution case leading to the murder of Jagbandhan was proved by Suresh Chand PW 1 Mithan PW 5 and Ajab Singh PW 6 .
In companynection with the said case Jagmeg son of Kaley Ram brother of PW 1, Suresh Chand, Anirudh and Arun, both sons of Jagbandhan deceased and other members of their family were made accused.
The sentences were, however, directed to run companycurrently.
B. SINHA, J. Appellants are before us questioning the companyrectness of a judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4th April, 2005 affirming a judgment and order dated 23rd December, 1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut companyvicting the appellants herein under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 148 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively.
