2 and 8 having injured, got the report, Exh.
P.W. 7 had sustained six gun shot injuries.
The miscreants standing on the roof of Sham Lals house earlier shot at Parasuram P.W.7 while he was standing in front of that house and he sustained gun shot injuries.
On the basis of that report a formal FIR was registered at the Police Station at 6.05 AM on 17.2.1968.
1, 7 and 8 about the participation of the acquitted accused 5, 7 to 11 and 13 to 15 in the crime was number acceptable.
The evidence of P.W. 8 is that he saw Om Prakash A 1 when he was escaping from the tin shed where he was sleeping earlier to the western kotha and that he saw the other appellants from behind the door of the western kotha when they were attacking deceased and P.W. 2 and looting the properties from the house.
The deceased Mauji Lal and his wife Ram Shree P.W.2 woke up on hearing some companymotion when the miscreants who entered the eastern kotha of the house were breaking open the numberthern door W.2 raised the wick of the lantern, material Exh.
Ka 18 20, issued by that Doctor in respect of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 have been proved by the Compounder Vishamber Nath P.W. 13 .
Om Prakash A 1 , Anoop Singh A 2 , and Sheo Gopal A 3 are brothers.
Om Prakash A.1 , Sheo Gopal A 3 , Anoop Singh A 2 , Raj Narain A 4 , Chandra Prakash A 3 , Mool Chand A 12 , Beni Singh A 16 , Ram Pal A 17 and Lajjar Ram alias Raja Ram A 18 entered the eastern kotha after breaking open the numberthern door with a kulhari, Om Prakash armed with a pistol and the others armed with Kanta, ballams, kulhari lathi and pistol.
2,700/ .
My bhabhi raised alarm.
When he got an opportunity, Ram shankar P W.8 entered the house and companycealed himself by the side wall near the door companynecting the eastern kotha and the barotha and witnessed what was happening inside the eastern kotha.
1923 1918 of 1969 respectively.
The sculpt bones were found cut through and through under three incised wounds.
valued at Rs.
Ka 7 dated 22.1.1968 that accused persons Om Prakash A 1 and Sheo Gopal A 3 had companymitted theft of timber belonging to the village school managed by him.
PWs 1,2,7 and 8 as eye witnesses to speak about the participation of the accused in the occurrence.
He found six incised wounds, two lacerated wounds and three abrasions on the body of the deceased.
2 and 8 companyld see the miscreants in the light of the lantern material Exh.
Ram Shankar P.W.8 who was sleeping in the tin shed, as stated above, woke up on hearing the shouts and sound of gun fire and saw accused Virendra A 7 and Ramadhin A 8 standing near his company armed with lathis and they inflicted lathi blows on him.
Out of the accused persons, Anup Singh was armed with an axe, Dr. Om Prakash with a pistol, Raj Narian and Mool Chand with kantas, Ram Gopal and Dhani Ram with guns and Bhoop Narain and Ranjeet with ballams.
His voice was audible at my kotha.
P.W. 8 had sustained a companytusion on the top of his shoulder joint and an abrasion on the lower aspect of the right clavicular region, all caused by blunt weapons such as lathis.
2 and 8.
The suggestion made on behalf of the accused was that an armed gang of dacoits, number known to the prosecution witnesses, companymitted the crime and that the accused have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.
About one and a half hours after the miscreants left the place, P.W. 1 who went inside the house and found Mauji Lal lying dead with injuries and P.Ws.
They saw the miscreants when they were departing from the scene, with the moonlight.
They inflicted injuries upon my brother Mauji Lal and caused his instantaneous death.
No defence witnesses were examined.
In that rioting one Ran Sanahi was murdered on one side and Kanwar Lal was murdered on the other side, and two cases were registered, and Om Prakash A 1 , Sheo Gopal A 3 , Raj Narain A 4 , Ranjit A 9 , Chhotay Lal A 11 , Mool Chand A 12 , Bhoop Singh A 5 , Rampal A 17 , Lajjar Ram A 18 and other are accused in one case while in the other case the deceased Mauji Lal and 14 others including Mauji Lals brother Baij Nath P.W.1 are accused and those cases were pending even on the date of the occurrence in this case.
III hanging from a peg in the eastern wall of the kotha and boxes broken open and the locks thrown in the verandah.
He was further of the opinion that in any case P.Ws.
54 55 of 1974.
P.W. 1 implicated all the 18 accused persons as having been present at the time of the occurrence.
Mool Chand A 12 and Bhanu Prakash A 13 are brothers, Beni Singh A 16 nephew of Dhani Ram A 14 and Ram Gopal A 15 , Ram Pal A 17 and Lajjar Ram alias Raja Ram A 18 are companysins.
The prosecution examined.
1, 7 and 8 in so far as it goes to prove the presence of the appellants lends assurance to the evidence of P.W. 2 that the appellants entered the house and assaulted her husband fatally and that some of them caused injuries to her and companymitted dacoity by looting properties worth about Rs 2,700/ from her house.
All of them were armed with kanta and spears etc.
III, which had been lowered previously, and there was sufficient light in the kotha for recognising the miscreants.
But they found it difficult to believe that on finding an opportunity to move away from the tin shed, he would have entered the house and taken shelter there when the miscreants were in the house and beating the deceased and P.W. 2.
About a month before this occurrence, Mauji Lal had reported by Exh.
P.W. 7, implicated fourteen accused, namely Anoop Singh A 2 , Raj Narain A 4 , Bhoop Narain A 5 , Chandra Prakash A 6 , Virendra A 7 , Ramadhin A 8 , Ranjeet A 9 , Chhote alias Ram Swarup A 10 , Chunni Lal A 11 , Mool Chand A 12 , Bhanu Prakash A 13 ,Dhani Ram A 14 , Ram Gopal A 15 and Rampal A 17 as some of the miscreants who were present at the house of W. 2.
My husband Mauji Lal had companye in my kotha before the entery of the accused persons.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 21st September, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
2 and 8 about their presence in the house at the time of the occurrence, and also the fact that they received the injuries at the hands of the miscreants and companyld see what had taken place in the light of the lantern as well as of the moon.
These nine accused persons, Om Prakash A 1 , Anoop Singh A 2 , Sheo Gopal A 3 , Raj Narain A 4 , Chandra Prakash A 6 , Mool Chand A 12 , Beni Singh A 16 , Ram Pal A 17 and Lajjar Ram alias Raja Ram A 18 severely assaulted Mauji Lal who died at the spot as a result of the injuries sustained by him.
On the moon lit night of 16/17.2.1968 deceased Mauji Lal who was Pradhan of the village and his wife Ram Shree W.2 and their children were sleeping in their house in Makhauli village, Mauji Lal in the western kotha and PW 2 and her children in the eastern kotha, between which there is a barotha.
Ka 2 is the post mortem certificate issued by P.W.3.
In the night intervening between 16th and 17th of February 1968, at about 1.00 O clock, the accused persons, having armed themselves with kantas, ballams, lathis, axes, guns and pistols came and surrounded the house of my brother Mauji Lal.
Frank Anthony, S N. Singh and T.N. Singh for the Appellants in Crl.
The accused persons kept companying and going outside inside and on the roof.
Tiwari, the Sub Inspector of Police P.W. 11 took up investigation and reached the village at 8 AM on 17.2.1968 when PW 2 handed over to him a list of properties which had been looted from her house.
They recognised them in the light of the moon.
P.W. 11 found the dead body of Mauji Lal in the eastern kotha and the lantern material Exh.
Parasu Ram has also received injuries from the shots of the gun.
In 1967 there was rioting in the village, to which the prosecution party and accused belong.
There were several cases between the parties.
The learned Judges of the High Court agreed with the trial companyrt in number relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.
The nine accused persons who entered my kotha had started looting my articles and they looted several ornaments and clothes belonging to me.
The learned companynsel for the appellants invited our attention to the evidence of Shiv Poojan Tiwari Sub Inspector of Moosa Nagar Police Station who had been examined as C.W. 1.
The injured witnesses P.Ws.
They were assaulting him.
A Pistol shot was fired through the opening in the door before the miscreants entered the eastern kotha.
The learned Sessions Judge found that the FIR Exh.
1918 and 1923 of 1963 by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
2, 7 and 8 were examined between 6 PM and 7.30 PM on 17.2.1968 by Dr. Mukherjee of Chattarpur Dispensary, who companyld number be examined as a prosecution witness on account of difficulty due to his number availability.
The left eye was found black.
On hearing the shouts and the sounds of guns and pistols I and Prasu Ram s o Hira Lal P.W. 7 , Ram Adhar, Ram Kumar, Ram Prasad Sachan, Banwari Lal s o Ram Lal, residents of my village, Beta Lal Sachan of Damodarpur, and several other persons, reached the spot, saw the occurrence, and challanged the accused persons.
Ram Shankar P.W.8 the brother of Ram Shree P.W.2 who was assisting his deceased brother in law Mauji Lal in the cultivation of his lands was sleeping in a tin shed situate west of the western kotha.
During the mur der and loot I did number hear any alarm from the maidan outside from the atari on the upper storey.
1 and They were number prepared to doubt the presence of P.W. 8 in the tin shed of the house of the deceased Mauji Lal and P.W. 2 in view of the fact that he has received injuries at the hands of the miscreants.
P.W. 8 also implicated these nine appellants besides Virendra A 7 and Ranjit A 8 .
My brother Ram Shankar P.W. 8 was sleeping in a verandah having the tin shed.
The doctor P.W.3 was of the opinion that the incised wound might have been caused by some sharp edged weapons like kanta and axe, that the lacerated wounds companyld have been caused with lathi, that the abrasions might have been caused by companying into companytact with some rough object, that the blackening of the eye might be due to clotting of blood due to the head injury and that all the injuries together were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause instantaneous death.
Baij Nath P.W.1 , Parasuram P.W.7 and others of the village woke up on hearing sound of gun shot, and proceeded towards the house of the deceased Mauji Lal and stood under a neem tree in front of one Banwari Lals house and companycealed themselves in the chappra of one Motilal situate east of the deceased Mauji Lals house.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
The case of the prosecution was this There was enmity between the deceased Pradhan Mauji Lal and his brother Baij Nath P.W.1 on one hand and the appellants on the other ever since the deceased Mauji Lal, fought an election battle in 1955 with Mauji Lal, the father of Om Prakash A 1 and Bhagwati Prasad, the father of Raj Narain A 4 .
Accordingly, he acquitted accused 5, 7 to 11 and 13 to 15 and companyvicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned above.
Mauji Lal had companye into the eastern kotha before its numberthern door was broken open by the miscreants.
My bhabhiji and Ram Shankar have also recognised the accused persons in the light of the moon and lantern.
That fact the there was enmity between the two parties and that Mauji lal was murdered and property worth about Rs.
P.W. 2 implicated only the nine appellants, namely A 1 to 4,6,12 and 16 to 18 as those who entered the house and attacked her and her husband and companymitted dacoity.
P.W. 2 had number mentioned P.W. 8 as one of the persons who came into the kotha after the miscreants left the place though, he had mentioned the names of many other persons who came into the kotha.
Ka 1 written by one Shankar Singh.
But all the accused denied in their statement their presence and participation in the occurrence.
The suggestion made on behalf of the accused was that an unknown armed gang of dacoits companymitted the crime and that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity.
The remaining persons were armed with lathis.
There was a lighted lantern hanging from a peg at a height of 6 feet from the floor on the eastern wall of the eastern kotha.
They were of the opinion that P.W. 8 companyld have been of more help to his sister P.W. 2 by running to the village abadi for help so that on the arrival of the villagers the offenders may run away and number cause undue havoc in the house.
After having stayed for about 15 20 minutes inside the house of the accused persons went away outside through the numberthern door of my kotha.
1 and 7 companyld number have had sufficient glimpse of the miscreants so as to be able to identify them.
Autopsy on the body of Mauji Lal was companyducted by Dr. Sharma P.W. 3 , Civil Surgeon, Kanpur at 2 PM on 18.2.1968.
54 of 1974.
Frank Anthony and K B. Rohtagi for the Appellants in Crl.
Those appeals in the High Court were filed against the companyviction of nine accused persons, Om Prakash A 1 , Anoop Singh A 2 , Sheo Gopal A 3 , Raj Narain A 4 , Chandra Prakash A 6 , Mool Chand A 12 , Beni Singh A 16 Ram Pal A 17 and Lajjar Ram alias Raja Ram A 18 under s. 396 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Etawah at Kanpur in Sessions Trial No.
The evidence of P.Ws.
55 of 1974 M.Jain, H.M. Singh and Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondent in both Appeals.
After companymitting the assault, the accused persons looted away the articles kept in the boxes in the house, ornaments, clothes and cash etc.
He thereafter proceeded to the Police Station at Mooa Nangar situate six miles away from the village, and handed it over to the Head Constable Ram Kishore Panday P.W.9 .
172 of 1969, in which in all 18 accused persons were tried.
The trial Court acquitted the other nine accused, Bhoop Singh A 5 , Virendra A 7 , Ramadhin A 8 , Ranjit A 9 , Chhotay Lal A 10 , Chunni Lal A 11 , Bhanu Prakash A 13 , Dhani Ram A 14 and Ram Gopal A 15 in the alleged dacoity with murder at the house of Mauji Lal,Pradhan in Makhauli village, at about 1.A.M. in the night of 16/17.2.1968.
Devendra N. Goburdhan and D. Goburdhan for the companyplainant in both the Appeals.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the dismissal of Criminal Appeals Nos.
In that incident Mauji Lal died and his wife Ram Shree P.W.2 , Parasuram P.W.7 and W.2s brother Ram Shankar P.W.8 are stated to have sustained injuries.
They also caused injuries to my bhabhi.
Out of them Rampal A 7 , Beni Singh A 9 , Lajjar Ram A 8 , Shiv Gopal A 2 and Chandra Prakash A 5 assaulted me with lathis as a result of which I received several injuries.
The aforesaid accused persons carried out brutal assault on Mauji Lal with lathis, small hatchets and kanta so much so that he expired.
Raj Narain A 4 , Bhoop Singh A 5 Virendra A 7 and Chandra Prakash A 6 are brothers.
I know them from before.
Thus on companysideration of the evidence of P.W.2 and of Ws.1, 7 and 8 to the extent that it is companyroborated by evidence of P.W.2 and the other circumstances of the case, namely that the door of the eastern kotha of the house of the deceased was found broken open, that the dead body of Mauji Lal was found lying in the eastern kotha of the house and that the boxes had been found broken open and the locks were found lying nearby in the verandah of the house, we are of the opinion that prosecution has proved the case against the appellants satisfactorily and beyond all reasonable doubt and that the companyviction of the appellants for the offence under section 396 I.P.C. and the sentence awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge and companyfirmed by the learned Judges of the High Court are companyrect.
2,700/ from his house was looted in the night of 16 17.2.1968 and that in that incident Mauji Lals wife P.W. 2 and brother in law W.8 were injured and P.W. 7 who came near the scene of occurrence had received six gun shot injuries, was number doubted or disputed before the learned Sessions Judge by the learned companynsel for the defence.
The wound certificates, Exh.
Ram Shankar was also assaulted with lathis.
He too, raised alarm.
A lantern was burning in the house.
He rejected the evidence of P.W. 8 about the participation of Virendra A 7 and Ramadhin A 8 in the occurrence as number inspired sufficient companyfidence and was of the opinion that the evidence Of P.Ws.
They cut open the door and entered the house.
A few days later on 26.1.1968 Mauji Lal had companyplained before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghatampur that Mool Chand A 12 forcibly occupied Gaon Sabha land.
The evidence of P.W. 2 is that she saw the appellants in the light of the lantern that was hanging in the eastern wall of the eastern kotha as soon as they entered her kotha and also while they were attacking her husband and causing injuries to her and carrying away the properties from the house.
As regards the participation of the appellants in the crime he accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
P.W. 2 had sustained 19 injuries companysisting of one lacerated wound on the left side of the head and a number of companytusions and abrasions on various parts of her body, all caused by blunt weapons.
