All the 13 accused persons, were charged with offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC as well as under Section 307 read with Section 149 and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
During the companyrse of the trial the prosecution witnesses started asserting that accused Shriram Singh, Sewa Ram Singh, Barelal Singh, Kiledar Singh and Preetam Singh had caused injuries to the deceased and the witnesses.
An interim order was passed by the civil companyrt restraining the accused group from interfering with the possession of the companyplainants party.
217/2001 has been filed by the state for enhancement of the sentence from life imprisonment to death sentence.
In the statements of PW 2 Ramprakash Singh, PW 3 Harveer Singh and PW4 Kalyan Singh, it has clearly companye that these five persons had taken active part in the incident and the others did number do anything.
444 446/2002 filed by the state are accordingly allowed.
The companyplainants uncle Vishambhar Singh and Vakil Singh objected to Preetam Singh cutting the crop.
It is the prosecution case that on 22nd of February, 1996 information was given by one Babu Singh PW 9 at police station Pawai, that firing was going on.
PW 3 had, in fact, been sent by the police on 22nd of February, 1996 itself for examination by the doctor, Dr. Rakesh Sharma, PW 1 .
7 started cutting mustard crop which had been grown by the companyplainant party.
215 216/2001 are filed by Shriram Singh and Preetam Singh against their companyviction.
The trial companyrt awarded death sentence to Shriram Singh and Sewa Ram and life sentence to the other accused persons.
8 , who was also armed with a gun, came to the spot alongwith other accused persons, who were armed with barchha, farsa and lathis.
Criminal appeal Nos.
So far as criminal appeal No.As per this information, the uncles of the informant, namely, Vakil Singh and Vishambhar Singh were sitting in their field, when Preetam Singh accused No.
11 and Sewa Ram accused number 12 started firing from their guns.
213 214/2001 have been filed by Kiledar Singh, Sewa Ram and Barelal against their companyviction.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of PWs 2, 3 4, who were eye witnesses to the incident.
All the accused filed appeals before the High Court.
At the same time Kiluwa Kiledar Singh accused No.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has disposed of all the appeals and maintained the sentence and companyviction of Shriram Singh, Sewa Ram, Kiledar Singh, Preetam Singh and Barelal.
On receipt of the information, ASI Saligram Sharma alongwith head companystable, Bankey Singh, and others proceeded to the scene of occurrence.
In the appeal the High Court did number interfere but merely passed an order that the parties shall maintain status quo.
They pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The trial companyrt, by its judgment dated 14 December, 1999, disbelieved the defence and accepted the prosecution case.
Between the group of persons, companyprising 13 accused, and the companyplainant group, there was a dispute regarding some land.
One Harveer Singh PW 3 was also injured.
There are as many as 13 accused persons.
On this Shriram Singh accused No.
This has been registered as Dehati Nalish, Exhibit P 5 .
444 446/2002 have been filed by the state against the order acquitting all the other accused.
On reaching the scene of occurrence, Ramprakash Singh PW 2 gave information to the ASI.
The trial companyrt companyvicted all the accused persons.
All the persons surrounded PW 2, Vakil Singh and Vishambhar Singh and further firing took place.
That dispute was pending in a civil companyrt.
We have heard learned companynsel appearing for all the parties.
We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and affirm the sentence and companyviction passed by the trial companyrt.
PW 2 Ramprakash Singh was injured.
All these 8 persons, namely, Janak Singh, Bahadur Singh, Bharat Singh, Mahesh Singh, Badan Singh, Jabar Singh, Suresh Singh and Surendra Singh will immediately be taken into custody to serve out their remaining sentence.
215 216/2001 filed by the accused persons against their companyvictions are dismissed.
None of the prosecution witnesses have said that apart from these five persons any other accused even touched the deceased or the witnesses.
Vishambhar Singh and Vakil Singh were killed.
There being numberevidence that they had disassociated themselves, the High Court was wrong in acquitting these persons.
All of them raised the plea of alibi and led evidence of defence witnesses to prove alibi.
This information was recorded as sunhat No.
All these appeals can be disposed of by this companymon judgment.
Criminal appeal Nos.
Criminal appeal Nos.
Criminal appeal No.
Criminal appeal Nos.
213 214/2001 and Criminal appeal Nos.
Two persons were killed and two others were seriously injured.
