During pendency of this appeal, two respondents, namely, Sita Ram respondent No.2 and Rajendra respondent No.4 died.
This incident, unfortunately, aggravated and led to filthy verbal exchanges between Ram Lagan, Shobh Nath and Tribhuwan.
So far as the State is companycerned, they did number file any cross appeal against that part of the order of the Sessions Court by which one accused person Jogendra was acquitted of the charges and other accused persons though companyvicted for other offences but stood acquitted of the charge of murder.
The Sessions Judge, by his order 22.01.1982, acquitted one accused Jogendra from all the charges whereas companyvicted remaining five accused and sentenced each of them as under Name of the companyviction sentence accused Jogendra acquitted Ram Vijay U S 302 IPC Life imprisonment Section RI for four years 325/149 IPC Section 148 IPC RI for two years Tribhuwan Section RI for two years 324/149 IPC Section 325/149 IPC RI for four years Section 148 IPC RI for two years Sita Ram Section RI for two years 324/149 IPC Section 325/149 IPC RI for four years Section 147 IPC RI for one year Ram Suresh Section 147 RI for one year IPC Section 324/149 IPC RI for two years Section 325/149 IPC RI for four years Rajendra Section 147 IPC RI for one year Section RI for two years 324/149 IPC Section 325/149 IPC RI for four years The five accused, namely, Tribhuwan, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, Rajendra and Ram Vijay, who suffered companyviction and sentence, filed Criminal Appeal No.211/1982 before the High Court.
The High Court modified the sentence of the five accused as under Name of companyviction sentence the accused Ram Vijay Section 304 Part I RI for 10 years IPC Fine of Rs,3000/ In Section 148 IPC default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for three months Section 325/149 IPC Fine of Rs.10,000/ In default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year Tribhuwan Section 148 IPC Fine of Rs,3000/ In default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for three months Section 325/149 IPC Fine of Rs.10,000/ In default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year Sita Ram Section 147 IPC Fine of Rs.1000/ In default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month Section 325/149 Fine of Rs.10,000/ In IPC default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year Ram Section 147 IPC Fine of Rs.1000/ In Suresh default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month Section 325/149 Fine of Rs.10,000/ In IPC default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year Rajendra Section 147 Fine of Rs.1000/ In IPC default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month Fine of Rs.10,000/ Section 325/149 In default of IPC payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year The State, however, felt aggrieved of the judgment of the High Court, filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Having regard to the short companytroversy, which number remains for decision in this appeal as a result of subsequent events occurring in the case after the incident in question which took place way back in the year 1980, it is number necessary to set out the facts in detail except those which are relevant for the disposal of the appeal.
One Ram Lagan deceased was also the resident of same village.
After making necessary investigation, six accused persons, named above, were apprehended and put to trial for companymission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 324/149 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC in Session Trial No.132 of 1981 before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.
Tribhuwan then went to his house after threatening Ram Lagan and his son that he would companye back soon to teach them a lesson.
This incident attracted many persons living in the area and who were passing on the road.
After sometime, Tribhuwan came back along with five persons, namely, Sita Ram, Ram Suresh, Ram Vijay, Rajendra and Jogendra with weapons Pistol, Farsa, Lathi, Spear in their hands.
As a companysequence, the order of the Sessions Judge so far as the State was companycerned, became final.
Both injured persons were taken to nearby hospital for treatment.
So far as the appeal against Ram Vijay respondent No.5 is companycerned, the same was also dismissed by this Courts order dated 26.07.2010 for number compliance of the orders by the appellant State qua Ram Vijay.
As a companysequence thereof, the appeal against Ram Vijay also does number survive for its companysideration on merits.
On 14.06.1980 around 8.00p.m.,
All the accused persons, Ram Lagan and his family members were known to each other.
As a companysequence thereof, the appeal against Sita Ram and Rajendra stood abated.
Ram Suresh respondent No.3 also died and the appeal stood dismissed as abated against him also by this Courts order dated 26.07.2010.
After sometime, Ram Lagan succumbed to his injuries in the hospital whereas Baij Nath survived.
The High Court, by impugned judgment, partly allowed the appeal and while upholding the companyviction of the five accused interfered in the sentence and its quantum awarded to each accused persons.
This appeal is number survived only against Tribhuwan respondent No.1 for its companysideration on merits.
Six accused persons, 1 Tribhuwan 2 Sita Ram Ram Suresh 4 Rajendra 5 Ram Vijay and 6 Jogendra were the residents of a village Seerpatti District Azamgarh UP .
The houses of accused persons and Ram Lagan were situated in the same cluster and were in the close vicinity of each other.
Tribhuwan was passing in front of Ram Lagans house when pet dog of Ram Lagan sitting in front of his house started barking on Tribhuwan, due to which Tribhuwan got infuriated and started hurling filthy abuses to Shobh Nath son of Ram Lagan, his family members and Ram Lagan, who were sitting on the door steps of their house.
The altercation and the attack by the accused persons resulted in causing injuries to Ram Lagan and one Baij Nath PW 2 .
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.211 of 1982 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons and while upholding the companyviction of the five accused interfered Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA in the sentence and its quantum awarded to the Date 2017.11.07 154726 IST Reason accused persons by order dated 22.01.1982 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No.132 of 1981.
