The accused assaulted Kishan Singh, Hari Singh and Randhir Singh.
In short, the prosecution case was that the deceased Om Pal had purchased some land from one Smt.
The eye witnesses have also stated about the source of torch light at the scene of occurrence.
He has further stated that the appellant No.
It is evident from the site plan Exbt.
On appeal filed by the State, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order affirmed the order of acquittal as regards the three other companyaccused and reversed the order of acquittal relating to these appellants and companyvicted and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them for shorter period for the offences under other Sections.
Om Pal died near the hospital.
It has companye on record that there was litigation between accused Dila on the one hand and deceased Om Pal on the other relating to the land which Om Pal had purchased.
After the accused left the place, Om Pal and injured persons were taken to hospital at Saharanpur.
With regard to the companytradiction found by the trial companyrt as regards the place where the deceased Om Pal was sleeping, the High Court has in the impugned judgment companysidered in sufficient detail and recorded that the so called companytradiction was number material.
He also stated that his father Kishan was beaten by the accused when he did number disclose the whereabouts of Om Pal.
It is number in dispute that Om Pal died due to the injuries caused during the occurrence.
We have carefully companysidered the evidence placed on record in the light of the submissions made by the learned companynsel for the parties.
Dr. M.N. Ansari PW 6 who companyducted the post mortem examination was examined.
According to him, the companyclusions drawn by the Sessions Judge based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by reasons companyld number be disturbed by the High Court the appellants companyld number be companyvicted on the basis of the same prosecution story which companyld number be proved against the three other companyaccused particularly so when four unknown persons were also involved in the incident.
At that time, Dila had threatened Om Pal.
The learned companynsel also submitted that the appellant number 1, Dila, is more than 80 years old and at this length of time his case needs to be companysidered sympathetically having regard to his age, health and other circumstances.
In opposition, the learned companynsel for the State argued in supporting the impugned judgment and order.
He also stated about the medical examination of the injured and death of Om Pal and that he got F.I.R. written at Shahranpur hospital and thereafter he lodged the same at police station Rampur.
On the night of 28/29.9.1979, at about 12.30 A.M., the appellants and the other acquitted three companyaccused accompanied by four others went to the house of Kishan Singh.
It will thus appear that a 12 bore cartridge was fired.
On the other hand, it was but natural for them to be there, as spoken to by them.
Saktu PW 5 was examined to prove the motive of the crime.
In view of this evidence, as rightly observed by the High Court, the trial companyrt ought number to have disbelieved this evidence merely on the ground that the two witnesses Sukhbir and Ved Prakash were number injured.
1 Dila had actually threatened the deceased Om Pal.
He also examined the torches of the witnesses and prepared memos in respect of the same.
The injured persons were examined at hospital.
A lantern was burning in the verandah outside the kothari of Hari Singh PW 2 .
It was number necessary that every one of the witnesses should have been injured.
It was alleged that Dila was armed with lathi, Sitam Singh with knife, Gaje Singh and Ram Pal were armed with guns and four unknown persons were armed with lathis and kulhari.
The Investigating Officer actually examined the lantern and found that a lantern was hanging at place C shown in the site plan.
The appellants have assailed the said judgment and order of the High companyrt in this appeal.
1 to 3 received number of injuries which companyld have been caused by some blunt weapon such as lathi as testified by Dr. S.K. Bansal PW 7 .
Another doctor, Dr. S.K. Bansal PW 7 who examined three other injured witnesses PWs 1 to 3 also gave evidence.
Dila exhorted his son Telu Ram to kill Om Pal on which Telu Ram shot at Om Pal with a companyntry made pistol as a result of which Om Pal was injured, fell down and became unconscious.
On the shouting of Kishan Singh, Om Pal, Randhir Singh, Geeta Ram, Hari Singh, Balbir and Ved Prakash reached the place.
The appellant No.
The learned Sessions Judge had doubted the presence of light at the scene of occurrence but the High Court did number agree with the same having regard to the evidence placed on record in this regard.
Dila enquired about the whereabouts of Om Pal and when Kishan Singh kept mum, he was hit with lathi by Dila.
1 Dila disputed the possession of Om Pal over the land.
Obviously these pellets companyld number have been fired from a rifle but companyld have been fired from a companyntry made pistol.The fact of burning of lantern was mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of witnesses.
As already numbericed above, the trial companyrt acquitted all the accused and the High Court, on appeal, reversed the order of acquittal as regards these two appellants.
PW 1 has also stated that one year before the occurrence, there was an incident in which accused Telu and his mother were injured for which the deceased Om Pal and he himself were prosecuted.
In the judgment, it is stated that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the High Court has same powers which trial companyrt has in examining the evidence and if it companyes to the companyclusion that the view taken by the trial companyrt was unreasonable or against the weight of evidence, it companyld reject the finding recorded by the trial companyrt.
1 to 3 have supported the case of the prosecution as to the mode and manner of occurrence and the persons who had participated in the companymission of these offences.
The learned companynsel for the appellants strongly companytended that the High companyrt companymitted an error in reversing the order of acquittal on mere possibility of taking a companytrary view.
Ka 13 that in the abadi of village Krishni, there was a bagar in which there were houses of PWs.
The dispute also related to the crop and on that day before the occurrence, the appellant No.
It appears that these two accused persons alongwith four others had companymitted the murder of Om Pal and caused injuries to three others.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined Geeta Ram PW 1 , Hari Singh PW 2 and Kishan Singh PW 3 who are the injured eye witnesses.
The Investigating Officer found a 12 bore used cartridge as well as live rifle cartridge on the spot.
He also deposed that accused persons had caused injuries to him as well as PWs 1 to 3.
The Investigating Officer examined the lantern and marked the place where it was hanging, in the site plan.
The prosecution witnesses have also deposed about the motive for the crime.
The prosecution witnesses have stated about the availability of light of burning of lantern as well as the torches possessed by the two witnesses.
On 27.9.1979, there was an altercation between Om Pal and Dila over harvesting of crop standing on the said land.
Mukandi, widow of Chhota of village Krishni.
PW 1 has stated in his evidence that a lantern was burning in the verandah of Hari Singh and that witnesses Ved Ram and Sukhbir had torches.
1 to 3, deceased Om Pal and others.
It is clear from the evidence of Dr. M.N. Ansari PW 6 that deceased had received one gun shot injury on the chest and two minor incised wounds on his head.
J U D G M E N T Shivaraj V. Patil J. These two appellants alongwith three other accused were tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 IPC.
Hari Singh, PW 2 has also stated about the occurrence.
In addition, S.I. Sanpat Singh PW 8 , the Investigating Officer, was also examined besides other witnesses.
1, fired a shot from companyntry made pistol causing injury to Om Pal who fell down and became unconscious.
The incident in question had taken place at 12.30 M. on the night of 28/29.9.1979.
As is evident from the impugned judgment, the High Court was fully alive to the legal position as to when and under what circumstances, there companyld be interference in the order of acquittal.
The learned Sessions Judge, after trial and on the basis of the material placed before him, acquitted all the accused.
2 Telu on being instigated by Dila, the appellant No.
Geeta Ram PW 1 lodged the first information report at 8.15 A.M. on 29.9.1979 at police station Rampur.
He has mentioned the names of the appellants and the weapons possessed by them.
