A.No.1020 of 2004 and Sarvajit Singh Sobhu, appellant in Crl.
On being satisfied with the services of the said Mukhchand, the Zamindar gave him a land for raising companystruction.
P.W.1 lodged the F.I.R. at Kotwali Police Station at 4.00 P.M., on the same day.
The inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer P.W.7 was marked as Ex.
On hearing the hue and cry, Ramjit PW3 and Shyam Raj, uncles of P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar and one Sheo Narain, who stated to have witnessed the incident, reached the spot.
Ranjit Singh armed with a revolver and the remaining three accused with companyntry made pistols, stated to have attacked the deceased Lorik by firing at him with their weapons and on receiving the injuries, Lorik fell down a few paces ahead and when Ranjit Singh fired again, the deceased is stated to have succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.
A.No.1020 of 2004, as well as the appellant in Crl.
Based on the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the Trial Court companyvicted the accused.
Ka12 and Ka13.
As far as the motive is companycerned, according to the prosecution, one Raja of Ausanganj, a Zamindar, owned huge properties with whom one Mukhchand, father of the deceased Lorik, was employed as a gardener.
Aggrieved over the same, they preferred appeals before the High Court in Crl.
The police registered a case in the General Diary and the same is marked as Exs.
According to the learned senior companynsel, as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer himself, at the time of inspection of the place of occurrence, apart from P.Ws.
It was, therefore, companytended that by examining the close relatives of the deceased alone and by number examining those independent witnesses, it will have to be held that the case of the prosecution was manipulated and that the reliance placed upon the so called eye witnesses viz.,
The appellant in Crl.
It is in the above stated background, as on date, the appeal relating to Sheo Shankar Singh, the appellant in Crl.
The State was represented by Mr.Vivek Vishnoi learned Standing Counsel for the State.
UTH 1287 as a pillion rider.
1 and 3, the statement of one Somraj and Shiv Narayan were recorded, but both of them were number produced before the Court.
In the Section 313 questioning, while all the other accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be falsely implicated on account of enmity, accused Sheo Shankar Singh companytended that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to attend a marriage in the house of D.W.1 Kanhaiya Singh at Singheri village, falling within the limits of Madganj Police Station, Ghazipur district.
The number examination of the so called other eyewitnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.
The site plan map was marked as Ex.
1 and 3, should number have formed the basis for the ultimate companyviction of the appellants.
Irked by the above result, the Zamindar who was nurturing a grievance stated to have set up the accused who were local gundas to get rid of the deceased, his brother and his family members from the lands.
The postmortem report issued by P.W.4 Dr.Virendra Srivastava, was marked as Ex.
The above fact was brought about in evidence through P.W.3 and the Courts below have numbered that while cross examining him, the said narration of facts relating to the motive companyld be ascertained.
A.No.1021 of 2004, only survive for companysideration.
Dr.Virendra Srivastava at the District Hospital, Ghazipur companyducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased on 14.06.1979 at 12.45 p.m. Blood stained clothes and earth was sent for Serologist opinion and the blood group was numbered as B as per Exs.
Further as salary companyld number be paid to the said Mukhchand by the Zamindar, the Zamindar allowed him to segregate six bighas of land from the forest belonging to the Zamindar for cultivation.
All the accused were charged for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The present appellant in Crl.
It is stated that the accused started intimidating the family members of the deceased, which gave rise to frequent companyfrontation among the accused party and the party of the deceased, who wanted to protect their property.
The number consideration of the evidence of P.W.8 about the motorcycle, also vitiates the case of the prosecution.
Ka32 and Ka33.
Since the price of the land increased by metes and bounds, the Zamindar wanted to reclaim the land, which ended in a prolonged litigation and ultimately the deceased and his brother stated to have succeeded in retaining the land.
A.No.1021 of 2004, was tried in Sessions Trial No.228 of 1979.
The said Mukhchand cleared off six bighas of land from the forest and stated to have started cultivating the same and after his death, his son one Basu, started working with the Zamindar.
As the deceased Lorik jumped from the motorcycle, P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar lost his balance, fell down and got his leg injured.
Keeping the above factors in mind and the alleged crime companymitted by the appellants, when we deal with the submissions of the learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellants, according to the learned companynsel, it was a case of blind murder since the deceased Lorik himself was a history sheeter, which has companye out in the evidence of P.W.7, the Investigating Officer himself and, therefore, the appellants and the other accused were companyveniently roped in taking advantage of the earlier tussle as between the appellants and the deceased.
While P.W.1 attempted to drive fast, the accused Harihar Singh exhorted his associates to kill the deceased, whereupon, Ranjit Singh is stated to have fired a shot and the same hit the deceased Lorik on his back.
Dr.P.N.Tandon, Medical Officer at Ghazipur District Hospital, was examined as P.W.2.
On 13.08.1974, the deceased along with his associates is stated to have assaulted the accused Harihar Singh and a criminal case was also lodged against him.
It was in the above stated background, it is stated that the accused party headed by Harihar Singh, who were nurturing a long standing grievance against the deceased, engineered a plot to eliminate him, which resulted in the ultimate murder of the deceased.
P.Ws.1 and 3, Rakesh Kumar and Ramjit son and brother of the deceased, were examined as eyewitnesses.
The accused Ranjit Singh along with his father Harihar Singh, his brother Sarvajit Singh Sobhu and companysin Sheo Shankar Singh alleged to have pounced upon P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar and the deceased Lorik and stopped their motorcycle by catching hold of its carrier.
After receiving the injuries, the deceased Lorik stated to have jumped from the motorcycle and ran away shouting for help.
Thereafter, Ranjit Singh and the appellants stated to have fled away from the scene of occurrence in the motorcycle belonging to W.1 Rakesh Kumar while Harihar Singh stated to have ran away from the scene of occurrence.
The second appellant in Crl.
The appellant in Crl.
P.W.2 examined P.W.1 at 4.30 p.m. and the injury report was marked as Ex.
A.Nos.814 and 815 of 1981 and the High Court having dismissed the appeals, the appellants are before us.
A.No.1021 of 2004.
A.No.1020 of 2004.
P.C., would belie the case of the prosecution.
A.No.814 of 1981 before the High Court is the appellant before this Court in Crl.
A.No.1020 of 2004, as well as one Harihar Singh were tried in Sessions Trial No.164 of 1979 and the appellant in Crl.
A.No.815 of 1981 before the High Court is the appellant before this Court in Crl.
A.No.815 of 1981 was pending before the High Court, the first appellant Harihar Singh expired and his appeal, therefore, stood abated as against him as per the order of the High Court dated 11.02.2002.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. These appeals arise out of the companymon judgment dated 26.09.2003, by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos.814 and 815 of 1981.
A.No.1021 of 2004 were further charged for an offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. All the three accused were awarded life imprisonment for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of P.C. and the present appellants in these two appeals were further awarded two years rigorous imprisonment for the charge under Section 379 of I.P.C. When Crl.
As the story of the prosecution goes, on 13.06.1979 at 3.30 p.m. at Badhwa Chau Muhanion Kachcha Road, by the side of the godown of the Irrigation Department near the hovel of Vinod, the deceased Lorik was travelling along with P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar his son, in a motorcycle bearing No.
