However, by the time they reached the outskirts of their village Ajit succumbed to his injuries.
The appellants pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against them and stated that they had been falsely implicated.
He first went to the place where the dead body of Ajit was laying and after preparing the inquest report sent it for post mortem examination.
In appeal the High companyrt also reappraised the evidence in the light of the criticism levelled by the appellants for rejection of the prosecution case and upheld all the findings recorded by the trial companyrt.
Then on exhortation of Gorakh Nath since acquitted Narbdeshwar fired at Ajit with a gun.
On companypletion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet and in due companyrse the case was companymitted to the companyrt of sessions.
In appeals preferred by them the High companyrt set aside the companyviction recorded against Gorakh Singh and Raghunath Singh but upheld the companyvictions of the three appellants.
Ajit then ran towards his baithak and fell down near the door.
Sri Sharma then went to the place of occurrence and seized blood from the baithak of Ajit.
38 OF 1996 J U D G M E N T K. MUKHERJEE, J. Mithilesh Upadhyay, Dwarikanath Tiwary and Narbdeshwar Tiwary, the three appellants in these appeals and two others, namely, Gorakh Singh and Raghunath Singh were arraigned before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge.
39 OF 1996 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Dwarikanath also fired from his rifle at the same time.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on January 1, 1989 at or about 12 numbern Ajit Tiwary the deceased along with his minor daughter Kumari Sadhana was proceeding from his house in village Kumhau within the police station of sheosagar.
On that report Ext.4 a case was registered and Madhusudan Sharma P.W.7 , the officer in charge of the police station took up investigation.
In support of their respective cases the prosecution examined nine witnesses while the defence examined ten.
Carrying Ajit on a company they then proceeded towards Sasaram for his treatment.
Hence these three appeals at their instance.
Mithilesh Upadhyay took a specific plea of alibi and companytended that on the date of occurrence he was undergoing treatment at the Banaras Hindu University hospital.
Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Arvind Tiwari W.1 , Sudama Singh P.W.2 , Parasnath Tiwari P.W.4 , Rajeshwar Singh P.W.5 and Chandradeep Tiwari P.W.7 , who lodged the FIR, figured as eye witnesses.
The motive that was ascribed by the prosecution for the above murder was that there was a long standing dispute over property between the appellant Narbdeshwar and the family of Ajit.
Leaving the dead body of Ajit at the village gate under care of others Chandradeep went to Sheosagar police station and lodged a report.
Chandradeep Tiwary W.6 , a companysin of Ajit, Sudama Singh P.W.2 , Paras Nath Tiwary P.W.4 , Rajeshwar Singh P.W.5 and one Mangal Singh number examined , who were then on the roof of he house and had seen the firing, hurriedly came down.
When Ajit tried to run away to save his life Mithilesh fired at him with a rifle which hit him on the chest.
The trial ended in companyviction of all of them under section 302/34 IPC and four of them excluding Gorakh Singh under section 27 of the Arms Act.
After detailing and discussing the evidence adduced by the parties threadbare the trial companyrt accepted the case of the prosecution in preference to that of the defence.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
On the way when they reached the house of Dwarikanath, he along with the other accused persons accosted them.
Rohtas at Sasaram to answer charges under sections 302/34 of the Indian penal companye and 27 of the Arms Act.
