The High Court without discussing the prosecution evidence and without finding whether it was reliable in regard to this part of the occurrence has reversed the older of acquittal and recorded an order of companyviction against appellant Kunenderpal Singh.
The prosecution evidence was companysistent and did number suffer from any infirmity as to the guilt of this appellant.
He returned to the Khalyan after lodging the report.
On examining some of the empty cartridges the Ballistic Expert companyld give a difinite opinion that his gun had been used in the occurrence.
Appellant Birpal Singh was carrying his licenced gun which was later seized by the police.
Appellants Birpal Singh, Kunendrapal Singh and Suraj Pal Singh are sons of Mathura Singh.
But it was just the reverse.
Appellants Birpal Singh and Kunendrapal Singh as also Sheo Mangal Singh since acquitted were carrying guns.
His presence, therefore, at the place of the occurrence was number only doubtful, but perhaps false, as numbericed by the High Court.
His gun was seized.
The Balistic Expert companyld number companynect any of the empty cartridges as having been fired from this gun.
Appellant Kunendrapal Singh is said to have fired the gun which he was carrying on PW Ram Chander son of Ram Lal and PW Prahlad causing injuries to them.
271 known as Patiawala field in village Gudera in the District of Farrukabad.
Finding very many discrepancies and improbabilities in the prosecution case, the Trial Judge doubted the whole case and acquitted all the accused.
Appellant Kunendrapal Singh, has been companyvicted under Section 307 of the Penal Code for attempting to murder PWs Ram Chander and Prahlad.
If the prosecution evidence was companyrect as to the firing of a gun shot by the Suraj Pal Singh then the wound of entry ought to have been found on the inner side of the left arm of Ram Lal because he had raised his arm before the shot hit it.
One of the sons of Ram Lal named Ram Bharosey went to Amritpur Out Post and lodged a report at about 11.00 A.M. on the 11th of April regarding the incident which occurred on the 10th April.
The prosecution case, therefore, against appellant Suraj Pal Singh was very doubtful and the High Court was number justified in companyvicting him.
The appellants wanted to obstruct them from doing so.
Mathura Singh is said to be carrying a spear.
He was declared to be in possession of the plot and companytinued to be so thereafter.
Appellant Mathura Singh, according to the prosecution story, was earring a spear.
The harvesting was, however, companypleted by Rum Lal on the 10th of April and the crops were stored in the fields of P.W. Prahlad and others.
The State preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed against the four appellants but dismissed against the other four.
There is a field bearing plot No.
Appellant Suraj Pal Singh is said to have snatched the gun of Sheo Mangal Singh since acquitted The latter was also having a gun license.
In relation to this field there was a dispute between appellant Mathur Singh and Ram Lal the person killed in the occurrence in question.
On the intervention of certain persons, the appellants left the spot with a threat that they would kill Ram Lal and his sons and would take away the crop from the Khalyan.
During the Pendency of the said suit, however, a proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC, 1898, was eventually decided in favour of Ram Lal on 13.8.1969.
He fired his gun and caused injuries to Ram Lal on his chest resulting in his death.
Thereafter, he fired a shot causing injury on the outer side of the left arm.
Mathura Singh had filed a declaratory suit on 13.6.1968 under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act impleading Ram Lal and others as defendants in that suit.
Conviction of Birpal Singh, therefore, under Section 302 of the Penal Code with a sentence of life imprisonment is perfectly justified.
The other members of the mob are said to be carrying lathis.
On the morning of 10.4.1970 Ram Lal and his sons went to that field to harvest the crop.
The wound of entry was on the outer side of the left arm.
The prosecution case further was that on the 11th of April, 1970 Ram Lal and his sons went to the Khalyan and started the thrashing of the harvested crop.
As admitted by one of the prosecution witnesses, Sheo Mangal Singh was ill and companyfined to bed at the time of the occurrence.
The story of the main occurrence is that appellant Suraj Pal Singh took the gun of Sheo Mangal Singh and aimed it at Ram Lal whereupon he raised his left arm.
An order of acquittal was recorded by the Trial Court in this regard too.
This is number at all justified.
At about 12.30 P.M. the appellants in the companypany of four others one of whom was Sheo Mangal Singh formed an unlawful assembly and came with a bullock cart to the Khalyan of Ram Lal.
L. Untwalia, J. This is an appeal under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate jurisdiction Act, 1970 by four persons.
After setting aside the order of acquittal recorded in their favour by the Trial Court, the Allahabad High Court has companyvicted them under the various section of the Penal Code.
Appellant Birpal Singh fired another shot on the chest of Ram Lal, the injury caused by which proved to be fatal.
