On being questioned and admonished by these three witnesses, the appellant accused ran away towards numberth.
Phool Chand raised shouts Raghuraj who also showed with the result that Khushi Ram PW 2 .
Further the F.I.R. was lodged by Raghuraj PW 1 at Gajner Police Station on the same day within two hours of the occurrence and in this report the names of other three eye witnesses, namely, Khushi Ram, Hussain Bux an Chote Lal have been mentioned.
He also companytended that the witnesses on whose testimony the lower companyrts have relied for companynecting the appellant accused with the crime should be regarded as witnesses who belonged to one party and as such their evidence was liable to be discarded.
Afterall Phool Chand had numberissue except a daughter who was married to one Salig Ram that daughter had died some 16 or 17 years ago with the result that his son in law and grand children had gone to stay with Phool Chand is village Bhagwantpur.
3336 of 1972 and Reference Case No.
The autopsy on the dead body of Phool Chand was performed by Dr.A K. Khanna Medical Officer on March 18,1972 at 1.00 p. m. and he found as many as 18 injuries 13 incised wounds, some on the neck, some on the chest and some on the face, and 5 abrasions out of the 13 incised wound 5 or 6 were on the neck and about 5 were on the chest and on internal examination it was numbericed that both right and left plura were incised at the apex, and the right plura cavity companytained 11/2 lbs.
About 10 months prior to the occurrence Phool Ghand had executed a gift deed Ex.
As stated earlier, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence in appeal preferred by the appellant and in the companyfirmation case.
Mussain Bux PW 3 and Chote Lal PW 4 went running to the spot from different directions.
Rajeshwar widow of Babu who had in the mean time died , Chote Lal and Raghuraj PW 1 , this was number relished by the appellant accused and his brother Mahadev nephews of Phool Chand.
For the reasons, which we shall indicate presently, it is number possible to accept either of these companytentions.
He suggested that a false case had been made out against him so that he may be in a position to companytext the Bhumidari and mutation proceedings.
It is true that there was some property dispute between deceased Phool Chand on the one hand and the appellant accused and his brother Mahadev on the other but on an appraisal of the evidence pertaining to the dispute it will be clear that it was the appellant accused who had accepted a wrong attitude.
Briefly stated the prosecution case was that deceased Phool Chand, whose only daughter had died some 16/17 years ago, had brought his son in law Salig Ram and three grand sons Babu, Chote Lal and Raghuraj PW 1 to his village Bhagwantpur and they were living with him.
Rajeshwari and other two grand sons Chote Lal and Raghuraj PW 1 .
On companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant accused on May 13, 1972 and after the preliminary inquiry the Additional District Magistrate J Kanpur sent the appellant accused, to the Sessions Court to take his trial under Section 302 IPC.
After the execution of the gift deed Phool Chand had applied for the grant of a Bhumidari Sanad in respect of his lands after depositing 20 times the rent of his share in the aforesaid lands and inspite of objections filed by the appellant accused and his brother Bhumidari Sanad has been granted to him on December 31, 1971 thereafter Raghuraj PW 1 , his brother Chotelal and his brothers wife Smt.
It was the appellant accused and his brother Mahadev who felt offended at the execution of such gift deed and filed objections in Bhumidari Proceedings, and mutation proceedings that were companymerced by deceased Phool Chand and his grand sons respectively.
But, in the mean time, the appellant accused had inflicted a number of injuries on Phool Chand who had fallen down.
128 of 1972.
On March 16, 1972 at about 6 00 p.m. Phool Chand and Raghuraj PW 1 went to the 8 Biswa filed in which wheat crop was standing they had gone there for uprooting Hariyali green fodder Raghuraj started uprooting the Hariyali near a jack fruit tree at the western mend Bandh of the field while Phool Chand sat on the southern mend Bandh in the south east companyner of the field and according to the prosecution at that time the appellant accused came to the field armed with a karauli and started stabbing Phool Chand after pulling him down from the Bandh.
Blood had flown out from his wounds and his clothes were also stained with blood.
Rajeshwari applied for the mutation of the said lands in their names in the Revenue records but the appellant accused and his brother Mahadev preferred objections to it on June 3, 1972 and the application for mutation was pending at the time of the occurrence.
Rajeshwari and in that situation it was natural for Phool Chand to have executed a gift deed in favour of Smt.
At the trial four eye witnesses were examined, they being Raghuraj PW 1 , Khushi Ram PW 2 , Hussain Bux PW 3 and Chote Lal PW 4 .
Ka 27 in respect of his l/3rd separated share in the ancestral lands admeasuring 111/2 bighas in favour of Smt.
of clotted blood and the left plura cavity companytained 1 lb of clotted blood that trachia was injured at the 6th trachial region on the right side the right left lungs were ruptured at the apex.
He recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared a site plan where after further investigation was done by Station House Officer S.I. Shashidar PW 6 .
The incident during the companyrse of which Phool Chand was assaulted by the appellant accused with a Karauli inflicting numerous injuries is said to have taken place on March 16, 1972, at about 6.00 p.m. in the 8 Biswa field of Phool Chand in village Bhagwantpur and the motive for the assault was property dispute.
One of the grand sons Babu died leaving his widow Smt.
Raghuraj and others went near Phool Chand but after one or two hico up Phool Chand died on the spot.
Raghuraj got a report prepared in his house and carried it to the police station Gajnar after walking a distance of 4 miles from his village and lodged the same with Bhoop Singh, Head Constable, at 8.45 p.m. The Head Constable forwarded the papers to the Station House and left for the village along one Babu Ram Constable.
He has challenged his said companyviction and sentence in this appeal by special leave granted on December 2, 1975.
A S I. Falah Uddin PW 5 received the papers at about 1 00 a.m. at night at Bishanpur where he had gone in companynection with some other investigation and from there he proceeded to Bhagwantpur village.
In the morning of March 17, l972 he held an inquest of the dead body and sent it for postmortem examination.
On an appreciation of the oral evidence of these four eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence and the evidence pertaining to the investigation done by A.S.I. Falah Uddin PW 5 and S.O. Shashidar PW 6 , the learned Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that the prosection had established the guilt of the appellant accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, companyvicted him under Section 302 IPC and having regard to the brutal manner in which the murder had been companymitted out of greed for property he sentenced him to death.
The appellant accused denied having companymitted the crime and companytended that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity.
Place and the factum of murder of Phool Chand.
The Bhumidari proceedings were over in the sense that numberwithstanding the objections filed by the appellant accused the Bhumidari Sanad had been issued to Phool Chand and at about the time of occurrence only mutation proceedings were pending.
According to the Doctor Khanna death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the aforesaid ante mortem injuries and the death companyld have taken place in the even evening of March 16, 1972.
279 of 1972 on November 25, 1972, which companyviction and sentence were companyfirmed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
D. Tulzapurkar, J. The appellant accused was sentenced to death by the second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur under Section 302 IPC for companymitting the murder of his uncle Phool Ghand in Sessions Case No.
He, however, urged that the motive suggested by the prosecution would cut both ways and should furnish a ground for companying to the companyclusion that the appellant accused had been falsely implication in the case with a view to prevent him from companytesting the mutation proceedings that were pending before the Revenue authorities.
