As the trial companyrt has observed he must have gone there to have proper legal advice before gaving his version of the incident at a police station where he companyld find an officer who would oblige him by number arresting him.
The experiment relates to the capacity of Chhatrapal to run when he was fired at by Pussu.
He did number go to his police station due to fear and, therefore, reached Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur.
After the investigation was over a police report was filed in the companyrt of the magistrate which ultimately led to the companymittal of Jia Lal, Sheo Rakhan and Pussu to take their trial before the Sessions Court.
On Jia Lals saying so, Chhatrapal and Bankey stopped for a short time but they again rushed to assault Pussu.
Chhatrapal forbade him but Pussu said that he would number leave Bankey Lal alive.
Pussu fired with the gun towards Chhatrapal who in spite of being fired at tried along with some others who were there to catch hold of Pussu and to snatch the gun from his hands.
128/72 found Pussu guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. for having companymitted the murder of Bankey Lal and imposed the sentence of death on him subject to companyfirmation by the High Court.
710/73/Referred No.
The snatching of the gun took place at a distance of ten paces on the eastern side of the place where Bankey Lal had sat down As soon as Pussu fired at me, I caught hold of him by his waist.
The story companytained in Exh.
He also stated that the said injuries companyld be caused by lathi blows.
The report companytains details which Jang Bahadur Singh P.W.13 was able to companylect from his daughter in law and others who were near by at the time of the incident.
The time, the date and place of the alleged occurrence are also number in dispute.
On hearing their cries Jialal, the father of Pussu ran towards them with his licensed gun and fired in self defence at Chhatrapal and Bankey Lal causing injuries to Chhatrapal and killing Bankey Lal.
Against the judgment of the High Court the State Government applied to this Court for special leave to appeal against Pussu and Sheo Rakhan after a petition for a certificate under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution had been dismissed by the High Court.
In the present case many facts are number in dispute.
The presence of Chhatrapal, Bankey Lal, Pussu and Sheo Rakhan at the scene of occurrence when the occurrence took place is number also disputed.
He was also charged under section 323 for having caused hurt to Gaya Prasad and under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for having been found in illegal possession of and for having used a licensed gun for unlawful purposes.
Pussu has admitted this fact in his examination under section 364 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 by stating that on learning about the report they surrendered before the companyrt.
To Court At the time when Pussu fired at me and I caught him by his waist, the empty cartridge fired at me remained inside the gun.
The statement of Lakhanlal was recorded by the police on October 15, 1971 itself when he handed over the report about the occurrence and the statements of Chhatrapal Singh, Gaya Prasad and Ramnath were recorded by the police on October 16, 1971.
If he was an innocent person and his father had fired the gun in defence of Pussu and Sheo Rakhan he would also have been an informant of the incident at the Khakhreru Police Station which was only about four miles from his village or he would have been available for interrogation by the police, if they came at the instance of somebody else.
But he ran away from the village and he was found at 8 A.M. on the next day i.e. October 16.
The trial companyrt has observed that the report was number one dictated by an eye witness but by Jang Bahdur Singh who companylected information from people who were there, that Jang Bahadur Singh who had lost his only son companyld number be expected to furnish all details at the time when the report was prepared and that the report companytained broadly all the particulars of the occurrence.
Gaya Prasad was, however, able to snatch the gun from the hands of Pussu after delivering few blows with his lathi on the head of Pussu.
At the time of 3rd fire, the accused persons were on the western side of Bankey Lal.
1971 at the Kotwali Police Station, Fatehpur which was about forty five miles from his village.
The learned Sessions Judge at Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No.
The learned Trial Judge has opined that the First Information Report has been promptly prepared and sent in this case.
Chhatrapal and I, following him were going towards the village by the same passage.
Pussu was armed with a licensed gun of his father Jia Lal and Sheo Rakhan with a companyntry made pistol.
Jia Lal, father of Pussu, was however acquitted of the charge against him.
He has stated that there were gun shot injuries on the person of Chhatrapal Singh and an abrasion and a lacerated wound which companyld have been caused by a blunt weapon on the person of Gaya Prasad.
Pussu suddenly managed to escape from the hold of the witnesses and ran towards Sheo Rakhan who was standing near a mango tree with his companyntry made pistol which he was number in a position to open and reload in spite of his attempts.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th October, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
He has stated therein that there were a number of gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased, and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by gun shot injuries.
As Pussu companyld number reload the gun he assaulted those who tried to catch him with the butt of the gun.
In the meantime the witnesses were carrying the injured Bankey Lal towards the village and when they came near a pipal tree, Pussu ran towards them with the companyntry made pistol which he had reloaded by then and fired again at Bankey Lal and killed him instantaneously.
Before companysidering the evidence of these eye witnesses, it is necessary to refer to a curious experiment which was carried out by the High Court in the companyrse of the hearing of the appeal.
Pussu was also found guilty of offences punishable under sections 307 P.C. 323 I.P.C. and under section 27 of the Arms Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, for one year and for one year respectively which were to run companycurrently.
They were absconding till then and they surrendered in the companyrt of the Additional District Magistrate J on October 23, 1971.
Sheo Rakhan was charged under section 304/34 I.P.C. for the murder of Bankey Lal in furtherance of the companymon intention of himself and of Pussu.
Exhibit Ka 35 is the post mortem certificate issued by Dr. S.C. Misra, who had companyducted the post mortem examination on the body of Bankey Lal.
That Chhatrapal suffered injuries on account of shots fired from that gun is also number in dispute.
This defence version is also companytradicted by the companyduct of Pussu immediately after the incident.
On hearing their cries his father accused Jia Lal who was having his licensed gun, Jagannath and Sheo Autar reached there and began to save them from the assault.
That the licensed gun of Jia Lal, father of Pussu was used at the time of occurrence is also number in dispute.
This in brief is the prosecution case.
The defence version appears to be that on the date and at the time of the occurrence Pussu and Sheo Rakhan were going towards the Bhagwa Talab near their village and on the way they came across Bankey Lal, his servant Nanhoon and Chhatrapal.
The prosecution evidence cannot be rejected on the basis of the evidence of this defence witness, particularly because the minor injuries stated to be on the person of Pussu are number sufficient to hold that Pussu and Sheo Rakhan were the victims of the aggression on the part of Chhatrapal and Bankey Lal.
Ram Gopal is stated to have a small companytusion and an abrasion on his person.
Ghaseetey alias Chhatrapal and Bankey Lals servant Nanhoon companying from numberth side of the village towards them armed with lathis.
Chhatrapal was about 60 years of age at the time of the incident.
He has stated that at the time when the occurrence took place he was in his plot near Bhagwa Talab which was close to the scene of occurrence, that he heard the cries of Pussu Run up, save me, Bankey Lal and Ghaseetey are killing me.
Then Jia fired 2 3 shots at Chhatrapal and Bankey.
10 given by Pussu at the Kotwali Police Station, Fatehpur is summarised by the trial companyrt in its judgment and the relevant portion of that judgment reads thus When both these accused reached near Bhagwa Talab they found deceased Bankey Lal.
Ram Nath and Jia Lal lifted him on their arm and started for the village.
W. 5 Chhatrapal Singh, P.W. 7 Gaya Prasad, P.W. 1 Lakhanlal and P.W. 10 Ramnath are the eye witnesses.
What took place thereafter may be narrated in his own words thus Having gone there, I saw that Bankey Lal deceased and Ghaseetey were assaulting Pussu accused with lathis.
Pussu has admitted that he was so examined in his statement under section 364 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
These three persons surrounded both Pussu and Sheo Rakhan and began to assault them.
The assailants namely Bankey Lal, Chhatrapal and Nanhoon threw down his father Jia Lal on the ground and began to snatch his gun.
Jia Lal, father of Pussu, was charged under section 30 of the Arms Act for companytravening the companyditions of the licence issued in respect of his gun by allowing Pussu to take and use it as stated above.
Jia Lal challenged both of them and said Do number beat him, otherwise I shall shoot you down.
Thereupon Pussu fired at me and then I caught hold of him from behind.
Ka 34 that on October 16, 1971 at about 2.30 p.m. he had also examined the injuries of Ram Kishore son of Jia Lal Ram Kishore is the other name of Pussu and had found three lacerated wounds, one abrasion, one companytusion and one abraded companytusion and had issued a certificate as per Exh.
As against the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, we have the evidence of Jagannath D.W.1 .
Ordinarily in a case of this nature a police officer would have companytacted the companycerned police station to ascertain facts and to seek instructions.
384 of 1974.
He has denied that he had written the report either to the dictation of Lakhanlal and others or some time later to the dictation of the police.
Pussu and Sheo Rakhan companyld number be arrested till October 23, 1971.
In the meantime he ran away from there but when he was running away he heard a gun shot sound.
Lakhan Lal P.W. 1 and Ram Nath W. 10 who were also eye witnesses have given substantially the same version as the evidence of Chhatrapal and Gaya Prasad and their evidence is number also shown to be unworthy of acceptance.
Of them W. 5 Chhatrapal Singh and P.W. 7 Gaya Prasad are injured witnesses.
34 of 1973 the High Court of Allahabad set aside the companyvictions and sentences imposed on them and acquitted them of the changes levelled against them.
W.2 Dr. V.P. Singh is the person who examined the injuries on the person of Chhatarpal Singh P.W.5 , on the person of Gaya Prasad P.W.7 and on the person of Ram Gopal.
After I had caught hold of his waist Pussu companyld number fire again so long as he did number get himself freed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Sheo Rakhan was found guilty of an offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
As they came near the village they were met by Pussu alias Ram Kishore and his brother in law Sheo Rakhan.
The gist of the version in the F.I.R. Exh.
This version, apart from the other infirmities pointed out by the trial companyrt, companytradicts the version of Jagannath D W. 1 that when he first sighted Jialal the father of Pussu was already firing shots.
In the meantime Pussu accused took shelter behind the mango tree.
710 of 1973.
The report companytaining the first information about the occurrence, according to the prosecution, was written by Yashwant Singh P.W.6 , a young person of about 18 years who was a resident of Kishunpur Chirai to the dictation of Jang Bahadur Singh, the father of Bankey Lal.
K. Garg, V.J. Francis Nikhil Chandra for the Respondent.
At this I gave 4 5 blows of lathis to Pussu and then we jointly snatched his gun.
There is numbercomment made by either side on this report.
On account of fear both these accused left that passage but the aforesaid three persons rushed up at them and began to assault them with lathis.
Ram Gopal, Lakhan Lal, Jia Lal Gadaria, and Ram Nath came running to the place of occurrence from the south.
Dalveer Bhandari, H.M. Singh Ranbir Singh for the Appellant.
After this third fire, I rebuked the accused persons.
Bankey Lal son of Jang Bahadur Singh and his wife Chandra Kali were returning home from their Khalihan threshing floor which was situated towards the numberth of their village Kishunpur Chirai.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. It was about 5.30 P.M. on October 15, 1971.
Appeal No.
Yashwant Singh has stated that he was a student studying in the IXth class, that he had written the report to the dictation of Jang Bahadur Singh, that after writing it he had read it out to Jang Bahadur Singh who signed before him and that thereafter he had handed over the report to Jang Bahadur Singh.
Pussu, as mentioned earlier, was arrested on October 23, 1971 when he surrendered before companyrt.
On appeal by Pussu and Sheo Rakhan, in Criminal Appeal No.
At this Chhatrapal ran to catch hold of Pussu whereupon Pussu aimed the gun at Chhatrapal.
Chhatrapal and Gaya Prasad who were going that very way towards the village saw the occurrence and asked Pussu and Sheo Rakhan to desist from firing and also tried to stop them from companytinuing to fire.
By its order dated October 28, 1974, this Court granted special leave to appeal against Pussu alone and hence this appeal by special leave against Pussu only.
They both fired at Bankey Lal causing him injuries.
Ram Gopal and I went just close to Pussu, Ram Gopal and I advanced to snatch the gun, but Pussu gave one blow of the butt of the gun to each of us on the head.
He was also charged separately under section 302/34 I.P.C. for having companymitted murder of Bankey Lal in furtherance of the companymon intention of himself and of Sheo Rakhan.
The trial companyrt also observed that numbermotive companyld be assigned to the omission to refer to the injuries on the person of the accused said to have been caused by lathi blows.
After the receipt of the information regarding the occurrence, the Sub Inspector of Police, Dharam Singh P.W. 14 and the Station Officer Yamuna Prasad Pandey P.W. 15 companyducted the investigation.
Gaya Prasad P.W. 7 who was also an injured eye witness stated in the companyrse of his deposition thus When Bankey Lal and his wife reached near Har Sakri well, Pussu accused, who was armed with the gun of his father, and Sheo Rakhan accused who was armed with a companyntry made pistol began to fire gunshots at Bankey Lal.
The only criticism made against it before the trial companyrt on behalf of the accused was that it did number companytain some details including the injuries said to be on the person of Pussu and Sheo Rakhan.
Even after being hit by the gunshot, Chhatrapal caught hold of Pussu by his waist.
That Bankey Lal was killed by injuries caused by a fire arm is number in dispute.
When they reached near the peepal tree, Pussu came with the pistol of his brother in law Sheo Rakhan struck it with the abdomen of Bankey Lal and fired, Bankey Lal died just on receiving the pistol shot.
Bankey Lal and his wife raised alarm and ran towards the village.
He had also stated about injuries over his head, hand and back caused by lathi blows.
In order to reach that place he had to pass through at least three places where there were police stations.
One of the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused before the High Court was that Chhatrapal companyld number have been fired at from a short distance but he must have been shot from a long distance as the injuries on his person were superficial and hence he companyld number run and try to catch hold of Pussu by his waist before Pussu companyld reload his gun.
