2 Virendra Singh found two gun shots wounds on the cranial cavity.
Accused No.
P.W. 7 the Doctor examined P.W. 2 at about 11.40 A.M. on the same day and found 10 injuries.
P.W. 2 Uma Shankar Singh and his relation Kailash Singh were also at the pumping set.
1 and 2, who are the main eye witnesses, companyvicted all the 14 accused of the offences for which they were charged and the substantial sentence awarded is imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. The companyvict ed accused preferred appeals.
P.W. 1 and other challenged and they chased accused No.
P.W. 3 is another eye witness.
Out of them Accused Nos.
13 was shot at by P.W. 1 and others and he and accused No.
There was a longstanding rivalry between the two groups.
Under Section 3 13 Cr.
Accused No.
Justice Seth companysidered the evidence of these two Doctors.
As regards this report which is purported to have been given by accused No.
He found two in juries, the first one is on the left nipple which is an entry wound and injury No.
1, 3, 4 and 6 applied for special leave which was granted by this Court and theft appeals are numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos.
13 Mahendra Kahar was referred to the Doctor P.W. 7 since there was an injury.
The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws 1 to 11.
P.W. 7, however, stated that he has number seen the report of the radiologist.
1, 3, 4 and 6 were armed with guns and the other were armed with lathis.
On internal examination he found a bullet embedded and the same was recovered.
and found two companytusions.
The injury was also stitched.
Justice Katju allowed the ap peals filed by the accused and dismissed the appeal filed by the State but the other learned Judge disagreed and dis missed all the appeals companycurring with the trial companyrt.
372 74/87.
He deposed that Accused Nos.
13 and he found five tiny abrasions in the area of 4cm x 4cm on outer surface of right thigh just above knee joint and the injured was refer red to the radiologist.
When they reached near the Khandhar old building of Vijay Pratap Singh Accused No.
6 was to be rejected mainly on the ground that there was numbermaterial to show that at the pond the fishing operations were going on.
He also admitted in the cross examination that the crime was registered on the basis of the report given by Chirkut Singh and the same was also investigating but it appears that numberaction was taken.
6 and others went to the pond for fishing.
149 I.P.C. for causing injuries to Uma Shankar Singh, P.W. 2 and Kailash Singh.
are being referred to as arrayed before the trial companyrt were armed with guns and the rest were armed with lathis.
1981 at about 8 A.M. a grave rioting took place in the village of Tirro in Varanasi District.
3 also fired at him as a result of which he fell down and when deceased No.
5 Lallan Singh exhorted the other accused who were all lying in wait to kill them.
13 and 14 took the view that they are simple and that it is number proved that these in juries were received during the occurrence.
He then went to the police station and lodged a report and deposited his gun and that W. 1 has falsely implicated him.
It may be numbered that the same has number been explained by the prosecution.
14 and found on him a skindeep 12 x 2 lacerat ed wound on the left thigh and a wound certificate was issued.
They advanced towards deceased Nos.
6 fired at P.W. 1 but he escaped.
The time and place of occurrence are number in companytroversy.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.1984 in the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
6 had a share.
13 and 14 he found injuries on them.
6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 admitted their presence at the scene of occurrence.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. On 29.5.
The other accused carrying lathis advanced towards P.W. 1 who ducked and escaped unhurt.
1 and 2.
After registration of the crime he undertook the investigation, went to the scene of occurrence, held the inquest of the two dead bodies and recorded the statement of the witnesses.
As already mentioned he was of the view that these appeared to be pallets but according to him they must have been there long before the incident.
He admitted that when he returned to the Police Station on 30th May, 1980 he came to know that, accused No.
The trial companyrt relying on the evidence of P.Ws.
Then he companyducted the autop sy on the dead body of deceased No.
The State also filed appeal for enhancement of the sentence.
6 has surrendered his gun.
All of them were companytusions and he opined that they might have been caused by a blunt object like lathi.
375 77/87 and the State has preferred appeals against the acquittal of the other remaining 10 accused which are numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos.
W. 7 also examined accused No.
1 and 2.
1 and 2 were killed and Vijay Narain Singh, P.W. 1, Uma Shankar Singh, W. 2 and one Kailash Singh received injuries.
13 and 14 received injuries and he also went to the police station and lodged a report to that effect.
4 Ram Briksh Singh fired at Deceased No.
The other circumstance strongly relied upon by the defence is that there were gun shots injuries on accused No.
13 and 14 were self inflicted cannot be accepted and that the plea taken by accused No.
As regards the presence of injuries on the accused persons, learned Sessions Judge having regard to the nature and size of the injuries found on accused Nos.
That the two deceased persons died of gun shots injuries also is number in dispute.
375 77 of 1987.
1 fired a shot which hit deceased No.
P.W. 7 the Doctor admitted that he examined Accused No.
He found a skin deep 12 x2 lacerated wound vertically inflicted on the front and outer surface of left thigh from which blood was oozing and the injured companyplained of pain.
In the appeal before the High Court, Justice Katju took the view that the theory that the injuries on accused Nos.
2 is an exist wound.
P.C. all the circumstances appearing against the accused were put to them.
P.W. 4 another Doctor who companyducted postmortem on deceased No.
On the day of occur rence at 8 A.M.P.W. 1 went to his pumping set.
2599 of 1981.
1n the companyrse of the said rioting two persons Mahendra Singh and Virendra Singh deceased Nos.
1, 3, 4 and 6 and acquitted the rest of the accused.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
He also admitted that he examined accused No.
13 he pointed out that the medical evidence is inconclusive on the point whether those injuries were caused at the time when this incident took place.
P.W. 1 managed to escape and ran away.
On the same day, he examined P.W. 1 and on his person he found four companytusions which companyld have been caused by Lathis.
6 was tried for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to companymit the murder of P.W. 1 and the remaining accused under Section 307 read with Sec.
2 also fell down.
1 and he was immediately also shot at by accused No.
Then the lathi wielding persons beat P.Ws 1 and 2 and Kailash Singh.
P.W. 5 is the Investi gating Officer.
1 and 2 were proceeding alongwith the rasta towards the pumping set for taking bath.
2 tried to move, Accused No.
Accused No.
When P.Ws 1, 2 and Kailash Singh rushed towards the place, accused No.
On the other hand, the companynsel appearing for the accused submitted that witnesses who were partisans and were highly interested have made omnibus allegations and it is highly dangerous to accept their evidence because there is every likelihood of innocent persons having been falsely implicated.
The defence examined Dr. S.K. Singh as D.W. 1.
All the 14 accused emerged out of the Khandar.
Then the lathis wielding accused assaulted W. 1 Vijay Narain Singh, P.W. 2 Uma Shankar Singh and Kailash Singh.
Accused Nos.
He also found two live cartridges one of 16 bore and another of 12 bore.
6 in par ticular stated that P.W. 1 and others armed with guns, spears and lathis tried to do fishing in the pond in which accused No.
Investigating Officer also admitted that when he saw accused Nos.
He also examined the accused in the Court and he found that hard substance were palpable underneath the flesh.
14 Sant Singh on the same day.
A number of cases were also pending in the companyrts.
In that view of the matter he companyfirmed the companyvic tion of Accused Nos.
6 and others and accused No.
They in general denied the offence.
A. Nos.
In the meanwhile Accused No.
1925, 1808 of 1981 and Government Appeal No.
K. Garg, Prith Raj, U.R. Lalit, R.L. Kohli, Shivpujan Singh, Manoj Prashad, Dalveer Bhandari, T. Sridharan N.P. and B.S. Chauhan for the appearing parties.
In respect of these offences 14 accused were tried under Sections 148 and 302 read with Sec.
3 Ranjit Singh and he fell down.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court companysisting of Justice Katju and Justice Agrawal heard the appeals.
1 fired at the deceased No.
The matter came up before a third Judge Seth, J. He took the view that only such of those accused to whom specific overt acts were attributed companyld be companyvicted and the other should be given benefit of doubt.
1 is an entry wound and injury No.
Since 1972 there have been disputes between these two rival groups.
Accused No.
It is alleged that the material prosecution witnesses, deceased persons and the accused belong to the same village.
To the same effect is the evidence of P .Ws 1 and 2 also.
Injury No.
4 shot at him and deceased No.
149 P.C. Chirkut Singh, Accused No.
2 is on the left palm.
14 were beaten with lathis and in defence he fired two gun shots hitting deceased Nos.
Deceased Nos.
However, among them, accused Nos.
Regarding the presence of the alleged gun shots injuries on accused No.
1 and Accused No.
6, P.W. 5 the Investigating Officer was questioned.
2 Virendra Singh who fell down and both deceased died on the spot.
1, 3, 4 and 6 accused Nos.
The Doctor also examined Kailash Singh, who was number examined as a witness.
The Doctor pointed out that the injury was simple and companyld have been caused by blunt weapon like a lathi.
