She asserted in her sworn testimony that on the date of incident at about 2.00 pm a quarrel had ensued between children of the two families and, therefore, Ram Kumar Singh had gone to the house of Kallu Singh with a view to get the matter reconciled amicably but the deceased was abused.
The learned Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas other accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
The injuries, which were numbericed by the Medical Officer while performing autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, have been mentioned by him in his substantive evidence before the companyrt.
The evidence further shows that the accused had decided to liquidate Ram Kumar Singh and were, therefore, standing in the front of their house with weapons and the appellant had killed the deceased by firing shot from the gun at him.
2, i.e., Vijay Pal Singh from his companyntry made pistol, which hit Mrs. Shanti Devi, wife of Nathu Singh.
The learned Judge numbericed that both, i.e., Kallu Singh, original accused No.
The Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded number guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.
Her testimony gets companyplete companyroboration from the companytents of FIR lodged by her.
Mrs. Jishna, who is the first informant, was examined as PW 1.
In the further statement the case of the appellant and others was that they were implicated falsely in the case due to enmity.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length and companysidered the documents forming part of the appeal.
Ram Kumar Singh was slightly ahead of his wife and son.
The eye witnesses, i.e., Mrs. Jishna and Rupender Kumar, have narrated the whole incident before the companyrt on oath in a simple manner without any material improvement.
Similarly, the evidence of DW 2 Harish Chander was of little assistance to the defence.
Some six months prior to the incident in question, some dispute had taken place between Ram Kumar Singh who lost his life in the incident and Kallu Singh, i.e. original accused No.3 over the question of digging and lifting of the earth from the land of accused No.3 for the purpose of raising of level of a village pathway which was decided to be companystructed by village people at a Shramdan Yojna held in the village.
On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties the learned Judge held that it was proved satisfactorily by the prosecution that deceased Ram Kumar Singh died a homicidal death and Mrs. Shanti Devi was injured in the incident.
On behalf of the accused witness Pooran Singh was examined as DW 1, whereas Mr. Harish Chander, a fire arm dealer, was examined as DW 2 and Mr. Nihal Chand, arms clerk, was examined as DW 3.
On scrutiny of evidence the learned Judge found that the evidence tendered by Mrs. Jishna, widow of Ram Kumar Singh, was trustworthy as well as reliable and the same was companyroborated by her companyplaint, which was neither ante dated number delayed and was filed promptly.
Though this witness was cross examined searchingly, numberhing companyld be elicited to establish that the appellant and others were falsely implicated in the case because of enmity.
3 and Ram Kumar Singh, the deceased, were brothers in law and wives of both of them were companysins.
3, i.e., Kallu Singh.
Mrs. Jishna thereafter got a report scribed through one Anand Kumar in the hospital premises and lodged the same at the police outpost Kanth, at 10.50 pm.
The High Court numbericed that Kallu Singh, who was rightly companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, had expired during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, the appeal by him had abated whereas there was numberevidence to establish that accused Vijay Pal Singh had companymitted offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, but his companyviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was eminently just.
On assessment of evidence of DW 1, DW 2 and DW 3, the learned Judge found that the defence that the accused were falsely implicated in the case due to enmity, was number probablized at all.
3, i.e., Kallu Singh and children of Ram Kumar Singh.
On the basis of the First Information Report, offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the four accused.
2402 of 1985 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Thereafter, learned companynsel on behalf of the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor were heard by the learned Judge with reference to the sentence to be imposed on the accused and by order dated September 9, 1985 the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for life for companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas accused Kallu Singh and Vijay Pal Singh were sentenced to life imprisonment for companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
After recording of evidence of prosecution witness was over, the learned Judge explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their further statements as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 and Devender Kumar, who was original accused No.
The fact, that deceased Ram Kumar Singh died a homicidal death, is number disputed before this Court by the learned companynsel for the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.
Ever since the said dispute, the parties were number on the talking terms with each other.
Similarly, the learned Judge found that the testimony of Rupender Kumar, son of the deceased, was trustworthy and reliable.
The companyrts below, on appreciation of evidence, have held that the FIR was neither ante timed number delayed and that the same was filed promptly.
The testimony tendered by the eye witnesses was subjected to great care, caution and circumspection by the High Court as well as by the trial companyrt because the eye witnesses were found to be closely related to the deceased as well as the accused.
The learned Judge found that accused Devendra Kumar had number companymitted any offence and was entitled to be acquitted.
Ram Kumar Singh went to the house of original accused No.
As the people gathered at the place of incident, Kallu Singh and his sons made their escape good.
No major discrepancy companyld be brought to the numberice of the companyrt by the learned companynsel for the appellant, which would make the testimony of the eye witnesses unreliable.
The said fact amply stands approved by the testimony of Dr. N. Sharma, who was examined by the prosecution as Prosecution Witness No.
Though this witness was cross examined at length, numberdent companyld be made in the assertion made by him that the deceased had died because of the gun shot fired by the appellant.
On sustaining the gunshot injury, Ram Kumar Singh tumbled down on the road.
At about 7.00 pm on the same day, Ram Kumar Singh, his wife Mrs. Jishna and his son Rupender Kumar were returning home from the jungle.
Injured Ram Kumar Singh succumbed to his injuries at the hospital and was declared dead by the Medical Officer at about 10.15 pm.
Another shot at Ram Kumar Singh was fired by original accused No.
After analysis of evidence of PW 3 Mishri Singh, the learned Judge held that the motive, which prompted the appellant to kill the deceased was dispute between the deceased and original accused No.3 relating to the digging and lifting of the earth from the field of original accused No.3 for the purpose of raising level of the road to be companystructed for people of the village and quarrel which took place between the grandsons of the deceased and accused No.3 on the date of the incident.
Witness Rupender Kumar has also stated that the appellant had fired a shot from his gun at the deceased as a result of which the deceased had died.
On May 30, 1983 at about 2.00 pm, some quarrel had taken place between the grandsons of original accused No.
622 of 1983, is companyfirmed The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under Deceased Ram Kumar Singh was resident of village Dudaila, District Muradabad.
On hearing the cries of Mrs. Jishna, wife of Ram Kumar Singh and numberse of the gun shot, Hari Raj Singh, Rattu Singh and others reached the place of incident.
As the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 are exclusively triable by a companyrt of Sessions, the case was companymitted to the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for trial.
After necessary investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the companyrt of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
3, i.e., Kallu Singh for getting the quarrel settled but Kallu Singh and his sons number only abused him but were found to be ready to assault him.
They, being the close relatives of the deceased, would number allow the real culprits to go scot free and implicate the appellant falsely in the case.
Thus, the examination of defence witnesses was futile and companyld number probablize the defence of the accused that they were innocent and were falsely implicated.4, are sons of original accused No.
Whey they reached near the house of the accused, who were standing in front of their house, Kallu Singh is said to have exhorted his sons to kill Ram Kumar Singh and finish the dispute for ever, whereupon the appellant fired a shot from his gun at Ram Kumar Singh which hit his chest.
The finding recorded by the trial companyrt as well as by the High Court on the question of motive companyld number be successfully assailed by the learned companynsel for the appellant.
At that point of time Ram Swarup and others, who were present there, intervened.
Further, accused Vijay Pal Singh was sentenced to R.I. for six months for companymission of offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code.
After placing reliance on the evidence of these two witnesses, the learned Judge held that it was established that the appellant had fired a shot at the deceased because of which the deceased had fallen down and ultimately died.
The High Court, therefore, by judgment dated July 11, 1985, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and partly allowed the appeal filed by Vijay Pal Singh, which has given rise to the instant appeal.
The appellant, i.e., Kirpal Singh who was original accused No.1, Vijay Pal Singh, who was original accused No.
DW 1 Pooran Singh had tried to suggest that there was numberway for companying to the house of the deceased from his chak, but to a companyrt question he had to admit that the deceased Ram Kumar Singh was going to his field from his open land, which was situated in the front of house of the appellant.
By judgment dated September 9, 1985 the learned Judge companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas accused Kallu Singh and accused Vijay Pal Singh were companyvicted under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and accused Vijay Pal Singh was also companyvicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Mrs. Shanti Devi.
Ram Kumar Singh, who had sustained fire arm injuries, was removed to Government Hospital, Kanth in a tractor, which was arranged by his wife Mrs. Jishna.
It is further asserted by her that at about 7.00 pm on May 30, 1983, when she along with her deceased husband and son Rupender Kumar was returning from jungle, they were accosted near the house of Kallu Singh, who with his sons, was standing on the road in front of his house and that the appellant, who was having a gun, had fired a shot at the deceased as a result of which the deceased had fallen down on the road.
M. PANCHAL, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment dated July 11, 2005, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
2402 of 1985 by which the companyviction of the appellant recorded under Section 302 IPC and imposition of sentence of life imprisonment on him by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in ST No.
The evidence tendered by DW 3 Nihal Chand that the deceased was also having a gun licence has numberconsequence whatsoever because it is numberodys case that the appellant had fired a shot from the gun belonging to the deceased.
Though the defence had examined three witnesses, the evidence of numbere of them was of any assistance for establishing the innocence of the appellant.
All the four accused, including the appellant, were also charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution, therefore, examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case against the appellant and others.
