mandiaon.
the trial companyrt on consideration of the material on record accepted the evidence of the four eye witnesses.
anthony on behalf of the appellants has assailed the companyviction of the accused appellants on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case is number reliable and suffers from infirmities.
the vendees sowed wheat in those plots.
umrao and others then went inside the tarwaha and.
jaitle who performed post mortem examination on the dead body of parmeshwar din found as many as 23 injuries on the body out of which 18 were incised wounds one of the incised wounds had resulted in cutting the occipital bone and anumberher had resulted in cutting the frontal bone.
the trial companyrt accepted the prosecution case and companyvicted and sentenced the six accused as mentioned above.
rana on behalf of the state has canvassed for the companyrectness of the view taken by the high companyrt.
the actual work of harvesting was being done by seven labourers four of whom were women.
umrao pw 1 as well as sita ram pw 4 were also present in the fields along with parmeshwar din.
sarju and putti accused who are both brothers laid claim to those plots.
the male labourers were shankar baddal and bubba.
appeal from the judgment and order dated the 10th october 1969 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench lucknumber in criminal appeal number 48 of 1968 .
both of them on hearing alarm also came there and saw the accused giving banka blows to parmeshwar din.
parmeshwar din deceased then went with udit narain.
the accused thereafter ran away.
sarju and putti also denied the prosecution allegation that parmeshwar din and sita ram had purchased the land in question and had brought the same under cultivation.
the body was thereafter sent to the mortuary where post mortem examination was performed by dr.
it has been pointed out that the statement of chandrika was recorded during the investigation of the case 25 days after the occurrence and as such number much reliance can be placed upon the testimony of this witness.
the incised injuries in the opinion of the doctor had been caused by some heavy sharp edged weapon.
the judgement of the trial companyrt was as already stated affirmed on appeal by the high companyrt.
umrao thereafter went to police station mandiaon and lodged there report ka 1 at 5.30 p.m. station officer tiwari pw 11 was number present at the police station at the time he report was lodged.
shortly thereafter umrao and sita ram pws heard the cries of parmeshwar din.
chandrika pw 2 and mohan pw 3 were passing that way at that time.
on looking towards the house of jaskaran they found that the six accused had surrounded parmeshwar din and were giving bank a blows to him in front of that house.
pw 3 and sita ram pw 4 as eye witnesses of the occurrence these witnesses supported the prosecution case as given above.
the tarwaha had one shutterless opening.
the labourers engaged in harvesting also followed umrao and sita ram to that place.
the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the head and neck injuries.
as against that mr.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 52 of 1970.
ram prasad is also stated to have been assured by sarju and putti that in case they were successful in getting those two plots they would give him half of the land.
in appeal before us mr.
the plots are at a distance of about 150 paces from the house of jaskaran father of jagannath accused.
jaitle on april 1 1967.
at about 2.30 p.m. it is alleged udit narain accused came to parmeshwar din and told him that some persons were waiting for him in the abadi of gadarian purwa to have some talks with the deceased regarding the two plots in dispute.
3000 as per sale deed dated december 23 1966.
and the high companyrt arrived at as a result of the appraisement of the evidence of the four eye witnesses.
the six accused in their statements denied the prosecution allegations about their having participated in the assault on parmeshwar din deceased.
umrao and sita ram then ran towards the tarwaha and stood close to the opening of the tarwaha.
the prosecution case is that parmeshwar din de eased and sita ram pw 4 purchased two plots of land situated in the area of village gadarian purwa from paggu and others for rs.
as ram prasad accused was an influential person sarju and putti sought his assistance in obtaining the possession of the plots.
according to the prosecution case the injuries found on the body of the deceased had been caused by the six accused including the three appellants.
the person murdered during the companyrse of the occurrence was parmeshwar din 35 .
on march 31 1967 it is stated parmeshwar din was getting the wheat crop standing in the two plots mentioned above harvested.
out of the appellants udit narain and sri pal were arrested on april 7 1967 while ram prasad surrendered in companyrt on april 14 1967.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by khanna j. this is an appeal by special leave by ram prasad 65 his son udit narain 22 and their servant sri pal 22 against the judgment of the lucknumber bench of the allahabad high companyrt affirming on appeal the judgment of the additional sessions judge lucknumber whereby the three appellants and three others namely sarju putti and jaganath had been companyvicted under section 148 and section 302 read with section 149 indian penal companye and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months on the first companynt and imprisonment for life on the second companynt.
the possession of these plots had been taken by the vendees about one or two months earlier when they paid rs.
500 as earnest money.
umrao and others shouted to the accused number to kill parmeshwar din but they too were threatened by the accused.
the occurrence giving rise to the present case took place on march 31 1967 at 2.30 p.m. in front of and inside the tarwaha of the house of jaskaran father of jagannath accused in village.
on being informed about the lodging of the report the station officer went to the place of occurrence and arrived there at 6.30 p.m. the station officer on arrival recorded the statements of umrao sita ram and mohan pws and prepared inquest report relating to the dead body of the deceased.
gadarian purwa at a distance of two miles from police station.
the case of ram prasad and udit narain was that they had been falsely involved in this case because of the enmity of sita ram pw with whom according to these accused ram prasad had an altercation on an earlier occasion.
the prosecution in order to substantiate that allegation examined umrao pw 1 chandrika pw 2 mohan.
the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
b. rohatgi for the appellants.
p. rana for the respondent.
the six accused then dragged parmeshwar din deceased inside the tarwaha which had a thatched roof.
