On the companytrary, the FIR lodged by one of the accused persons specifically states the factum of the death of the deceased Ramsagar Gupta and the version of the defence regarding the incident leading to the cross case.
1, under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for seven years respectively.
The incident resulted in injuries being sustained by both the sides in the same incident and led to lodging of two FIRs by the two sides at or about 10.45 to 11.00 a.m. companytaining companyflicting versions of the incident.
The two accused respondents were tried on charges under Sections 302, 307 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code.
Both the accused respondents preferred an appeal, which has been allowed by the High Court.
The trial companyrt companyvicted Braj Nandan Sah, the accused respondent No.
The dispute arose on an attempt by the persons on the side of the prosecution to fill up the ridge between the two fields, each one claiming the ridge to be a part of his field.
The factum of death and the prosecution version relating thereto was number disclosed to the investigating officer by any of the prosecution witnesses including the widow, the son and the other relations of the deceased for a period of at least four days from the date of the incident whereafter the witnesses claiming themselves to be eye witnesses started emerging one by one and narrating the story which implicated the accused respondents for the death of the deceased and the reasons for delay in disclosure.
The incident is of the date 11th December, 1983.
This is an appeal filed by the state by special leave.
One of the most material circumstance numbericed by the High Court is that there is a companyplete omission in the FIR as to that part of the incident which relates to the death of Ramsagar Gupta on account of injuries sustained in the incident.
It appears that the companyplainant and the accused have adjoining fields.
So far as the cross case is companycerned, the same is number before us at the moment and we would number like to companyment on the merits of that other case.
The accused respondent No.
Both the accused respondents have been directed to be acquitted.
Two cases were tried separately.
So far as the case before us is companycerned, we have gone through the judgments recorded by the trial companyrt and the High Court as also through the statements of the various prosecution witnesses and the relevant documents including FIR with the able assistance of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Both resulted in companyviction at the hands of the trial companyrt.
Two separate challans were filed.
Two different cases were registered and investigated.
