As a result, there was number much love lost between Jagdish and Sugriv on the one side and Hazarilal on the other.
When both of us were at a distance of 15 Dacron from the Nohra, I heard the sound of another fire.
On his return from the police station Inderjit met Ghaziuddin P.W. 2 from whom he learnt, what he Ghaziuddin had seen and heard a day previous, at the house of Jagdish.
On being hit with the shot, Hazarilal fell down.
Hazarilal was sitting on a company and Kanwar Sen and the witness were sitting on a heap of fodder nearby in the Duari because that was the only place affording shelter against rain.
Proceedings under ss.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 28, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
As against Naubat and Budhsen, appellants in the opinion of the High Court primary evidence companysists of their iden tification by some of the witnesses.
I saw them for the first time on the day of occurrence and thereafter I saw them in jail at the time of identification.
That companyrt also ignored the evidence of Chandrapal P.W. 5 , Girendra Pal Singh P.W. 7 and Lakhanpal P.W. 8 on the ground of their being either irrelevant or unreliable.
That companyrt also inspected the original entries in the general diary of the police as well as their carbon companyies.
What the witness next stated number be reproduced in his own words Four unknown persons entered the Duari from outside.
The remaining two caught hold of me and Inderjit.
I bad companye to the District Jail, Aligarh to identify them.
His statement as P.W. 14 left some doubts in the minds of the Judges of the High Court to clear which it was companysidered necessary to examine him again in the High Court.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant in Cr.
200 of 1969 .
It was 10 a.m. I had gone to the shot of Sannu Lal Patwari to make purchases.
The trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that Jagdish and Sugriv had abetted the murder of Hazarilal and appellants Naubat and Budhsen, had companymitted the murder.
He found one discharged cartridge and two wads at the place of the occurrence.
Hazarilal died.
Having touched Naubat, accused, the witness stated .
The badmash, who was sitting on the headside of Hazarilal, pressed his legs with his legs.
L. Sanghi, P. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji,0.
He denied that blank space had been left in the general diary for entering the particulars of the pistol tamancha and cartridges etc.
I heard an alarm from the eastern side in which direction lay the Nohra of Hazarilal.
He had gone to the jail for identification on three occasions.
It is numbereworthy that this witness has number specifically stated that Naubat, appellant, had fired the pistol shot.
199 and 200 of 1969.
He and Inderjit were sitting on the fodder because it was drizzling.
I saw these two accused at the spot for the first time and thereafter in jail.
Inderjit and I raised an alarm.
The High Court allowed the revision on July 26, 1967 and imposed on Jagdish a substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Budhsen, however, was arrested in companynection with some other case on October 14, 1967 by Sasni police.
Two assailants held these two witnesses and one sat on the company of the deceased and pressed the legs of the deceased with his own legs and the fourth one fired two shots having re loaded the pistol after the first shot.
First information report was lodged by Inderjit at police station Iodged, about ten miles away from the place of occurrence at 2.35 p.m. the same day September 12.
In 1962 also Jagdish and Sugriv had also been prosecuted by Hazarilal under s. 452/326 and s. 147, I.P.C. but they were acquitted.
Further investigation was companyducted by Sub Inspector Harcharan Singh W. 21 .
They were all sitting in the Duari because that was the only place which provided protection against rain.
The statement in regard to the occurrence may number be described in his own words Four unknown persons came, one of whom had ared jhola.
They used to harass the poor inhabitants of that village whereas deceased Hazarilal used to espouse their cause.
The existence of inimical relations between Jagdish and Sugriv on one side and Hazarilal on the other was number companysidered to be a sufficiently strong circumstance against Jagdish and Sugriv so as to hold them guilty of instigating Hazarilals murder.
The additional evidence recorded by the High Court companysisted of the statement of Lakhan Singh.
Bhoodev had the support of Hazarilal in the trial companyrt and the revision to the High Court was also preferred by him at the instance of Hazarilal.
According to the prosecution, the four unknown assailants murdered Hazarilal at the instigation of Jagdish and Sugriv.
that sordid drama.
Ram Singh, Darzi, was present at that shop along with me.
The person who was sitting by the headside of my brother pressed my brothers legs with his legs.
By means of a companymon judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellants Crl.
Ram Singh Ranchor and Imam Khan arrived at the spot.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. These two appeals by special leave arise out of a joint trial of the present appellants and Jagdish and Sugriv.
I did number see them anywhere in the intervening period.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
I did number know all the four badmashes from before.
Ever since then, according to the prosecution, Jagdish and Sugriv had been harboring ill feelings towards Hazarilal and planning to have him murdered through hired assassins.
Lakhan Singh had taken Budhsen in custody at police station Sasni.
It was principally the evidence of identification on which reliance was placed for holding the present appel lants to be responsible for the murder of Hazarilal.
In regard to this denial in Lakhan Singhs statement the High Court observed that the weapon of offence with which the offence under s. 307, I.P.C. was said to have been companymitted by Budhsen was probably a later addition though the companyrt did number companysider it proper to record a firm finding to that effect.
In cross examination the witness admitted that the assailants has been seen by him only for about three or four minutes.
One of them sat down on headside of Hazarilal and another proceeded ahead.
P. Rana, for the respondent in both the appeals .
According to the prosecution story Jagdish and Sugriv related to each other as companysins belonged to village Bidrika.
Naubat and Budhsen were, therefore, Sentenced to death and Jagdish and Sugriv to life imprisonment.
One of them sat down by the headside of my brother and another proceeded to wards the charpoy of my brother.
On hearing their alarm and the sound of pistol fire, Ram Singh, Imam Khan and Ranchor P.W. 4 came to the scene of occurrence and saw the four assailants running away from the Nohra.
Their glimpses ,of the assailants would of companyrse be somewhat fleeting but the different parts played by the four assailants would certainly have left on their minds a fairly firm impression as to what part the two appellants had played in.
The companyrt took into companysideration the identification parade for Naubat held by Magistrate pratap Singh on October 21, 1967 and that for Budhsen on October 28, 1967.
He recorded the statements of some witnesses, including Ghaziuddin on the following day.
A. No.
The fourth man re loaded his pistol and fired another shot which hit Hazarilal on the chest killing him instantaneously.
All the four accused were companyvicted by the trial companyrt the present appellants were sentenced to death under S. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and Jagdish and Sugriv to life imprisonment under S. 302 read with s. 109, I.P.C. They challenged their companyviction by separate appeals to the Allahabad High Court.
My brother died immediately.
2623 of 1968 and Referred No.
Jagdish and Sugriv on whom suspicion had fallen were number traceable with the result that warrants for their arrest were made over to Sub Inspector Yadav.
On appeal the High Court re summoned Lakhan Singh, Head Constable of Thana Sasni, District Aligarh, who had already appeared at the trial as P.W. 14 and recorded his additional statement.
The Badmashes escaped through the Duari and ran away towards the east.
After companysidering the entire evidence the High Court acquitted Jagdish and Sugriv but maintained the companyviction and sentence of Budhsen and Naubat, appellants.
199 of 1969 .
The following day at about 10 a.m. when it was drizzling Hazarilal was sitting in his Gher also described as Nohara on a company and his brother Inderjit P.W. 1 and Kanwar Sen W. 3 were squatting on a heap of fodder nearby.
Two of them caught hold of Inderjit and Kanwar Sen, one of them sat on the company of Hazarilal and pressed his legs and the fourth who was carrying a red jhola in his hand, took out a pistol from the jhola and fired at Hazarilal from point blank range.
1967 .
The three witnesses on whose evidence in regard to the identification the High Court relied are Inderjit, Kanwar Sen and Ranchor.
The statement made by Ghaziuddin, P.W. 2 was number believed by the High Court and his version was described as unnatural and improbable.
2623 of 1968 and allowed that of their company accused Jagdish and Sugriv Crl.
Of the remaining two, one caught hold of me, while the other caught hold of Kunwar Sen. Kunwar Sen and I immediately raised an alarm The person, who proceeded towards the charpoy of my brother, took out a companyntry made pistol from the bag and shot at my brother.
A. No.
On September 11, 1967 Ghaziuddin P.W. 2 is stated to have gone to the house of Jagdish and saw Jagdish and Sugriv in the companypany of four unknown persons and over heard Jagdish saying that the said four persons had left the job unfinished though they had visited the village often and telling them that the balance would be paid to them only after the job was accomplished.
Suddenly four unknown persons entered the Nohra through the Duari.
160 of 1968.
Baldev Mehta, for the appellant in Cr.
The other witnesses except three, were number relied upon by the High Court.
Having touched Budh and Naubat, the witness stated Identified them in jail.
Some years ago Jagdish, along with some others, was prosecuted for forging accounts of a Co operative Society and was found guilty the Assistant Sessions Judge, though released on probation under the U.P. First Offenders Pro bation Act.
The shot hit my brother and he jumped from the charpoy and fell down.
In the report, this is what P.W. I stated in regard to the identification of the alleged assailants and the respective parts played by them in the companymission of the offence Today at about 10 Oclock in the day I and my brother Hazari Lal and his partner Sajhi Kumar Sen son of Chidda Jatav of my village were present at the Gher, and it was raining a little, that four persons dame to the Gher and out of them, one man sat on the company near my brother and two persons caught hold of me and Kumar Sen and the fourth man having taken out the Katta pistol from inside the Jhola which he was carrying in his hand, fired shot at my brother Hazari Lal.
Hazarilal fell down.
My brother jumped and fell down the company, and he fired another shot at my brother, who had fallen down which hit Hazarilal at his chest as a result whereof he died.
P.C. were started against them but soon thereafter they surrendered themselves in companyrt on September 29, 1967.
The sentence of death imposed on the present appellants under s. 302, I.P.C. for the murder of Lala Hazarilal was companyfirmed.
The company on which Hazarilal was sitting was in the middle of the Duari.
The person, armed with the pistol, again loaded the pistol and shot at my brothers chest.
A. No.
Having loaded the pistol, the person armed with pistol, fired a shot at Hazarilal.
Inderjit and Kanwar Sen raised alarm.
During investigation the Investigating Officer learnt about the companyplicity of the present appellants and Naubat was arrested on October 9, 1967.
This further enraged Jagdish and Sugriv and Jagdish is stated to have threatened Hazarilal with death about ten days before his murder.
87 and 88, Cr.
Magistrate Pratap Singh P.W. 20 held identification parade of Naubat on October 21, 1967 and of Budhsen on October 28, 1967.
2648 of 1968 .
S. K. Yadav, Sub Inspector with whom the F.I.R. was lodged reached the scene of the occurrence at 6.15 p.m. the same day.
Lakhan Singh stated in the additional evidence that he had made entry at sl.
This was alleged to be the immediate motive for Hazarilals murder.
number 9 of the general diary of the original re port under s. 307, I.P.C. and s. 25 Arms Act made by Pannalal against Budhsen Ex.
On hearing my shouts and the sound of pistol firing Ram Singh, Imam Khan and Ranchor arrived.
The witness, having touched the accused Naubat and Budhsen, stated I identified them in jail.
I heard the sound of a fire.
The person having the red Jhola took out a pistol from the Jhola and fired at Hazarilal.
Ram Singh and I rushed towards the Nohra.
