31/1980 found all the accused persons including the appellant herein guilty of the offences charged and companyvicted them for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life.
The State has preferred the companynected Criminal Appeal No.
On companypletion of the investigation, as stated above, a charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC was lodged against all the accused persons.
The aggrieved accused persons preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
3 and 4 allowed the appeal of the four accused persons but companyvicted the appellant Moti, as stated above.
with PW 3 Dilraj.
During the pendency of these appeals, accused Chinku who is respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
Tyagi, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.
After companypletion of the trial all the accused persons were companyvicted by the learned Sessions Judge, as stated above, based on the evidence of eye witnesses PWs.
The High Court rejected the evidence of PWs.
3 and 4 as number believable but relied on the evidence of PW 2, the mother in law of the deceased and PW 5, the wife of the deceased and based on their evidence while acquitting the other accused persons companyvicted the appellant alone by companyfirming the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and awarded to the appellant punishment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
While the High Court disbelieving the evidence of PWs.
389/2000 supported the judgment of the High Court so far as the respondents in the said appeal are companycerned.
He was sitting after taking his meal.
Thereafter, the prosecution states that on an exhortation made by Bhola and Mahatam, the respondents in the companynected appeal, all the five accused persons assaulted the victim with lathis and thereafter dragged him to the companyrtyard of the house of appellant Moti which was nearby where the appellant Moti allegedly gave a blow with the spear on the chest of the deceased and others gave him lathi blows companysequent to which he died.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that on 18.6.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. When the deceased and his father in law Ram Nath since dead were sitting outside the house of his father in law, the accused persons came there.
389/2000 has died and the appeal has abated as against him.
While doing so, the learned Sessions Judge relied upon evidence of PWs.
388/2000.
Rice, roti and vegetable were prepared in food.
389/2000 against the acquittal of the other accused.
Dr. IP.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we numberice that there is a serious flaw in the prosecution case as to the time of the incident.
1622/1980.
The said Station House Officer of the Police Station registered the companyplaint and the investigation was subsequently companyducted by PW 8 Devi Sharan Singh, Sub Inspector.
Amongst the male members my father and husband were there at my home.
At that time appellant was armed with a spear and the other accused persons were armed with lathis.
3 to 5.
388/2000 was charged along with four other accused persons for having companymitted murder of one Ram Briksha on 18.6.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge who tried the said accused persons in S.T. No.
It is against the said judgment of the High Court companyvicting the appellant herein, the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The entire prosecution case as accepted by the High Court in this case so far as appellant Moti is companycerned rests on the evidence of PWs 2 and 5.
PW 5 Tara, the wife of the deceased in her evidence has stated thus Ram Briksha used to look after it in day time and he used to return back in the evening.
According to the prosecution, the incident in question has occurred around 9.30 p.m. on 18.6.1979 when deceased and his father in law were sitting on a company outside their house after finishing their dinner.
First of all, male member of family took their meal then female member of the family took meal.
The companyplaint of this incident was given by the father in law Ram Nath at Balipar Police Station on 19.6.1979 at about 0030 hrs.
Santosh Hedge, J. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
2 and 5 who were produced by the prosecution as eye witnesses.
