The moment, they reached near the Neem tree situated at a distance of 15 paces from the house of the deceased, all the accused accosted him, surrounded him and dragged him by pulling near the well upto a distance of 10 15 paces.
The only other relevant witness is D.P. Tiwari, PW 6, who was the Investigating Officer.
Ramesh A 2 put a cartridge into a companyntry made pistol and gave it to Ram Kumar A 1 , who also fired a shot at Raj Kumar, due to which Raj Kumar died on the spot.
Thereupon, Mani Ram A 3 fired a shot from his companyntry made pistol, which was followed by a second shot of fire from the companyntry made pistol of Swami Nath A 4 .
It so happened that on the fateful day, i.e., 24.10.1978, Raj Kumar deceased went to his tubewell, which is at about 100 125 paces from his house and after watering the field, he came back home at about 4.30 p.m., as there was numberelectric current available.
5 A 5 , while the second mentioned Appeal has been filed by Mani Ram, original accused No.
Ram Naresh A 6 then exhorted that Raj Kumar deceased should be murdered in the same manner in which his brother Ram Raj was murdered, so that Raj Kumar may number appear as a witness.
Within about 15 minutes, at about 5.15 p.m., Prithvi Raj PW 1 came back on his cycle from Village Dewara Kala, where he had gone for doing his duty as Panchayat Sewak.
He found the dead body of Raj Kumar.
The deceased Raj Kumar, who was about 24 years old, was the real brother of Prithvi Raj PW 1 , the companyplainant.
In that murder case, Prithvi Raj PW 1 had named 7 assailants, out of whom one was Ram Naresh A 6 .
Some accused persons were also tried under Section 148 IPC and two of them, namely, A 5 and A 6 were tried for the offence under Section 147 IPC.
Before the High Court, the criticism levelled was that the prosecution stood on the basis of the interested witnesses like Prahlad PW 4 and Daya Wati PW 5 .
After knowing about the incident from the eye witnesses, Prithvi Raj PW 1 himself wrote a First Information Report FIR Exhibit Ka 1 and went to Police Station Kotwali, situated at a distance of about 10 km.
He again started for his tubewell and his sister Daya Wati PW 5 and his mother and wife of Prithvi Raj, i.e., his sister in law also followed him.
The factum of this murder was mentioned in the other FIR, wherein it was companyplained that the companyplainants in this case have caused the murder of one of the persons of the accused party and since that FIR was already recorded by 7.45 p.m., there was numberquestion of ante dating the present FIR.
He also companyfirmed that all the three injuries were sufficient, in ordinary companyrse of nature, to cause death.
Ram Kumar A 1 and Ram Nath A 5 are the real brothers, while Ramesh A 2 is the son of their companysin.
All of them were companyvicted for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC for short by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao.
184 of 2005, Criminal Appeal No.
One of the sister is Daya Wati PW 5 , aged about 17 years at the time of the incident.
364 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.
In the FIR, all the 6 accused persons were named and the whole incident was also narrated.
When Prithvi Raj came out of his house, Prahlad PW 4 met him.
First mentioned Appeal has been filed by Ramesh, original accused No.
Other witnesses, namely, Prahlad PW 4 and Rajendra Singh and Surendra both number examined by the prosecution were also present there.
He talked to his wife and mother and his sister Daya Wati PW 5 .
The last mentioned Appeal has been filed by Ram Kumar, original accused No.
Because of the injuries, blood started companying out and the clothes of Raj Kumar were soaked.
Excepting Mani Ram A 3 , all the accused persons were from a single family.
The High Court also held that the medical evidence was enough to prove the guilt.
Ram Raj, who was one of the brothers of Prithvi Raj and Raj Kumar deceased was murdered on 12.6.1977.
The matter was investigated by D.P. Tiwari, S.I. PW 6 and after the usual investigation and recording the statements of the witnesses, as also after holding the Inquest Panchanama and Spot Observation Panchanama, the body was sent for post mortem.
All the accused persons then ran away.
The defence severally criticized the number examination of the other two witnesses, namely, Rajendra Singh and Surendra, who were admittedly present and also the other two ladies, namely, Nanhakki and Ram Piyari, who were claimed to be present in the FIR.
They included, in all, 7 Exhibits.
There was some enmity between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased.
In that case, deceased Raj Kumar was a witness.
The defence did number prevail and all the six accused persons came to be companyvicted.
3 A 3 .
The High Court further held that there was enough support in companyroborating evidence, inasmuch as in the FIR itself, names of all the accused persons alongwith the part played by each of them was reflected.
548 of 2005.
1 A 1 .
Prahlad had companye to the village to purchase the seeds.
Accused persons abjured guilt.
It was also held by the High Court that there was numberpossibility of ante dating the FIR.
All these arguments were repelled by the High Court.
The accused persons filed appeal before the High Court, however, their appeals failed and that is how the four accused out of the original six accused persons are before us, challenging their companyviction.
They had two other brothers and five sisters.
There were number of murders.
After the companypletion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed.
Two other persons also met him there and they also started towards the tubewell.
from the place of the occurrence, where he lodged it at 6.30 p.m. On the basis of this written report, check report Exhibit Ka 3 was prepared and the further investigation started.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the evidence of Prahlad PW 4 and Daya Wati PW 5 were absolutely trustworthy and stood the acid test of cross examination.
It was further urged before the High Court that the story of the FIR having been recorded at 6.30 p.m. was a myth and in fact, the FIR was ante dated.
Dr. S.M. Tripathi PW 2 , who had performed the autopsy, found five injuries on the body of Raj Kumar deceased , three being the entry wounds and two being the exit wounds.
Two eye witnesses, namely, Prahlad PW 4 and Daya Wati PW 5 were examined by the prosecution.
Prithvi Raj PW 1 spoke about the FIR, while Dr. S.M. Tripathi PW 2 spoke about the medical aspect.
