Ram Bharosey vs State Of U.P

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:-

3. The Learned Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and against other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant and others. They pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Therefore, prosecution examined several witnesses and produced documents to prove its case against the appellant and others.

4. On completion of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Learned Judge explained to the appellant and other accused the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded 6 their further statements as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In the further statements, the appellant and others denied the prosecution case. Three witnesses, i.e., (1) Sirajuddin, who was a Clerk, Municipal Board, Shamsabad as D.W. 1, (2) Rohatan Singh, as D.W. 2 and (3) Daya Shankar, as D.W. 3, were examined by the accused in support of their defence that they were innocent.

5. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence as well as hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties the Trial Court held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Puran Singh died a homicidal death. The Learned Judge found that evidence of first informant who was father of the deceased was trust worthy and reliable. The Learned Judge held that the FIR was not anti-timed and was promptly filed in which the appellant and Jagge were identified by their names while the two other accused were described by their relationship. 7 According to the Learned Judge motive for commission of the crime in question was proved by the prosecution which was that Hukam Singh who was father of accused Jagge and Munna was killed in 1976 for which deceased Puran Singh was prosecuted but acquitted and therefore in order to take revenge of death of father of Jagge and Munna, the deceased was murdered. The Learned Judge further held that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of the deceased was caused due to the shot fired by the appellant which act was done by him in furtherance of common intention of all the accused. Therefore, the Learned Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed sentence of life imprisonment on them.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant and others preferred Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 1981 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, by 8 Judgment dated August 17, 2004, has confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant but set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on three other accused. Therefore, the appellant has approached this Court.

11. Thus the prosecution case that the appellant fired a shot from tamancha at the deceased which 19 caused his death is satisfactorily established. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 cannot be regarded as erroneous or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in the instant appeal. The appeal has no merits and therefore deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

November 17, 2009.