They acquitted the respondents and set aside the companyviction and the sentence awarded to them by the trial companyrt.
1 to 3 belongs respectively to Mangalpura, Ram Nagar and Shankerpura which is situate about 1 1/2 miles numberth of Mangalpura.
The learned Judges of the High Court rejected the first information report of two grounds, namely, that it is quite long and companytains all the details and that PW 1 is number the author of its companytents.
On hearing those shouts PW 5 ran and on the way he met PW 6 and others and he went along with them to the scene of occurrence and saw the headless body of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh lying there.
Thereafter PW 6 and others went to the scene of occurrence and found the headless body of Jaleshwar Singh lying there, and subsequently PW 1 got the report written by PW 16 and proceeded with it to the police station.
Subsequently all of them went to the scene of occurrence and found the deceaseds headless body lying in a pool of blood.
XII addressed to the deceased on which he had written that he had given Rs.
II , ganj Ex.
IV , dhoti Ex.
P.W.15 left the police station along with P.W 1 and others for the scene of occurrence at 1.30 a.m. On 25.9.1974 and he began his investigation at the spot at 4 a.m. The headless body was identified to be that of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh by PWs.
Ka 13 dated 14.2.1973 that the respondents and one Chandrika Mallah were planning to kill him due to election and litigation enmity and were companylecting money for that purpose amongst themselves.
It was handed over by P.W.1 at Bansidh police station at 11.30 p.m. On 24.9.1974 to the Sub Inspector of police P.W.15.
1,3,6 and 16 and Bachchalal W 5 all of whom belong to Mangalpura.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW 5 who has stated that he saw all the respondents sitting and talking under companyer of the munjahani near about the scene of occurrence at about nightfall on 24.9.1974 and that at about 8.30 or 8.45 p.m. On that day he heard shouts that the respondents whose names he has mentioned were beating Babu Jaleshwar Singh.
When the deceased was going a little ahead of PWs.
The evidence of PW 6 is that when he was sitting at his house at about 8 p.m. On the day of occurrence he heard the alarm Run up people, I am being killed.
There was admittedly long standing enmity between the respondents and the deceased Jaleshwar Singh right from 1959.
The first information report was written by Raghubans Tiwari PW 16 of Mangalpura with the particulars furnished by PW 1 at the spot at about 9 p.m. On 24.9.1974.
They rejected the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as unreliable but accepted the evidence of PW 16 that he wrote the first information report at the police station in the presence of his own father and others to the dictation of PW 15.
VI , hand kerchief Ex.
Autopsy on the body of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh disclosed 1 incised wound severing the neck companypletely 2 multiple gun shot wounds on the upper part of the front chest and 3 abraded companytusions over the upper part of the hip.
He took up lathi and lantern and asked his companypanions to proceed, and when all of them were about 50 yards away from the out skirts of the village, PW 6 saw PW 1 and others companying and PW 1 told him that Lallo had shot the deceased Jaleshwar Singh with pistol, that Sri Kishun and Ganga Dayal armed with daos and Jagan Nath armed with Kora whip were sitting on the chest of the deceased and Lalloo had said cut the neck of salaPradhan and that they PWs 1 to 3 ran away from the scene when Lalloo aimed and pistol at them.
The trunk was further identified to be that of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh with reference to the towel Ex.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
1 and 3.
Therefore, Lalloo exhorted the other respondents for cutting the neck of the deceased whereupon the other respondents pounced upon the deceased for severing his neck.
When P.Ws 1 to 3 shouted in disapproval of what the respondents were doing, Lalloo pointed his tamancha towards them and threatened to kill them.
m e first of those companyplaints had been rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ballia on 10.5.1974 while the second was pending enquiry before that Officer at the time of his death.
XI , letter Ex.
2 and 3 belong to Shankerpura and Ram Nagar respectively.
The deceased had stated in his companyplaint Ex.
The respondents and others had moved two companyplaints for the removal of the deceased as Pradhan of Mangalpura.
10 to PW 1 for bringing witnesses and thumb impression of the deceased which had been companypared with his undisputed thumb impression.
320 of 1977.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1 to 3 in the eastern end of the moonj jungle, the respondents emerged from the moonj plants, armed, Lalloo with a tamancha, Sri Kishun and Ganga Dayal with daos and Jagan Nath with a whip.
K.Garg, L.R. Singh, N.M. Popli and V.J. Francis for the respondents.
Dalveer Bhandari and Manoj Prasad for the appellants.
The deceased accompanied by PWs 1 to 3 was returning on 24.9.1974 from Ballia where he had gone in companynection with the enquiry into the second companyplaint which had been posted on that day.
There was bright moonlight during that night it being the day of Bhado Sudi 9 and there were also torch lights with P.Ws.
Lalloo fired with his tamancha and the deceased fell down after receiving injury on his chest.
1 to 3 as those of eye witnesses are mentioned in the first information report and all the three witnesses had been examined by PW 15 on 25.9.1974 itself although, as stated earlier, PW 1 alone belongs to Mangalpura and PWs.
The case of the prosecution is that the informant PW 1 got the first information report scribed by PW 16 at the spot at about 9 p.m. On 24.9.1974 and presented it at the police station at 11.30 p.m. On the same day to the Sub Inspector of police PW 15 and that PW 15 left the police station after registering the case to the scene of occurrence along with PW 1 and others at 1.30 a.m. On 25.9.1974 and began his investigation at 4 a.m. The names of the respondents as the assailants of the deceased as well as the names of PWs.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted their evidence and relied upon the first information report given by PW 1 and found that all the respondents had companymitted the brutal murder of Jaleshwar Singh on account of the admitted enmity and he accordingly companyvicted and sentenced them to death under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. But on appeal the learned Judges of the High Court suspected the genuineness of the first information report as being that of PW 1 and rejected the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 about the occurrence and acquitted the respondents although they found The medical evidence leaves numberroom for doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, and the prosecution case with regard to its time and the weapons used in the assault also receives broad companyroboration from it.
The place of occurrence near the eastern end of the jungle of moon plants in village Mangalpura is also fixed up by the recovery of blood from there.
V , chhata Ex.
The case of the prosecution has been set out in the judgments of the companyrts below.
The facts relating to the admitted enmity between the respondents and the deceased are mentioned in para 10 of the trial companyrts judgment.
1411 of 1976.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special is by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondents Lalloo, Ganga Dayal Gond, Sri Kishun Chamar and Jagan Nath Godaria by the High Court, reversing the judgment of the trial companyrt which companyvicted them and sentenced them to death under section 302 IPC for the murder of one Babu Jaleshwar Singh at about 8 p.m. On 24.9.1974.
The doctor opined that death was due to severance of the neck by a sharp edged and heavy cutting weapon and that the injury to the neck was sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The respondent Jagan Nath belongs to Gosainpur which being a nearby village is included in Mangalpura Gram Sabha while the other three respondents belong to Mangalpura itself.
The entire prosecution case against the respondents rests on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who were Examined as eye witnesses and also on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6.
They, therefore, got frightened and ran towards Gosainpur and after informing Ayodhaya and Sheo that the respondents had attacked the deceased they rushed to Mangalpura where they met Kharag Bahadur PW 6 and others and informed them also about the attack on the deceased by the respondents.
P.W.1 is Adhyaksha President of the Co operative Society of Mangalpura besides being a member of the Gram Sabha of that village.
III , kurta Ex.
