TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mahesh Pratap Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal and reference, the Allahabad High Court acquitted all the four accused. The State of Uttar Pradesh has now filed the present appeal by special leave against Harihar Bux Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh. 2. Hargovind Singh deceased was a first cousin of Harihar Bux Singh accused. The two lived together in adjoining houses in village Andharra, at a distance of five miles from police station Bilgram in district Hardoi. The prosecution case is that there was some dispute between Harihar Bux Singh accused and Hargovind Singh deceased regarding partition of their joint propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratap Singh then fired a shot from his gun at Hargovind Singh. Hargovind Singh fell down and died immediately thereafter. The occurrenc, it is stated, was witnessed by Rajeshwari Devi as also by Gajraj Singh, Jograj Kachhi, Ram Kumar, Sadulla Gaddi, Ram Sarup and Shanti Kumari, wife of Vishwanath Singh, a collateral of Harihar Bux Singh, accused and Hargovind Singh deceased. When Gajraj Singh protested against the killing, the four accused went away. 3. Report Ka-2 about the occurrence was got written by Rajeshwari Devi from Vishwanath Singh's son. She then sent the report through Suresh Pratap Singh to police station Bilgram. A case was registered upon the basis of that report at the police station at 7.30 p.m. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saw a crowd and as such she did not go inside. Shanti Kumari added that she had not seen anything relating to this occurrence. Rajeshwari Devi and Gajraj Singh, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased and belongs to another village, gave eye witness account of the occurrence and supported the prosecution case as given above. 8. The accused in their statements under Section 342 of the CrPC denied their participation in the present occurrence. 9. The learned Sessions Judge did not place any reliance upon the evidence of Gajraj Singh and expressed the view that he was probably not present at the scene of occurrence. Reliance was, however, placed upon the evidence of Rajeshwari Devi (PW 1) although one or two parts of her e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement so that her version might not be believed by the medical evidence. Another fact to which reference was made by the High Court was that Rajeshwari Devi was acting as a tool in the hand of Devi Bux Singh who was inimical to and had litigation with Harihar Bux Singh accused. Devi Bux Singh stood by the side of Rajeshwari Devi when she gave her deposition before the committing Magistrates. The first information Report was sent to the police station also through the son of Devi Bux Singh. The fact that Rajeshwari Devi involved four persons even though the actual death of the deceased was caused by one assailant showed, according to the High Court, that Rajeshwari Devi was prepared to falsely implicate a number of persons. This, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
