TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1 has been also convicted under Section 394 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. So far the other two accused persons are concerned, the order of acquittal passed by the trial court has been upheld. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that both the appellants are the sons of accused Surendra Pratap Chand and accused Kaushalendra Shahi is their co-sharer. There was a long standing enmity between the accused persons on the one hand and members of prosecution party on the other inasmuch as appellant No. 1 got a case instituted through his servant Ramdhari under Section 392/411 of the Penal Code at Gorakhpur against Nagendra Pratap Shah and Dhirendra Pratap Shah, father and uncle respectively of Vinay Kumar Shahi (PW 1)-the informant besides their servants Rattan Yadav and Ganesh in which case 28th July, 1978 was the date fixed in Gorakhpur court for appearance of the accused persons of that case. On 28th July, 1978, Dhirendra Pratap, Rattan (PW 2) and Ganesh along with one Lallu Prasad Gupta had gone to appear in the said case and after attending the court, they stayed at Gora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome other manner of occurrence and they have been falsely implication in the present case out of animosity. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all, out of whom, Vinay Kumar (PW 1) is the informant and Rattan (PW 2) is his servant, both of them claimed to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Sita Ram (PW 3) and Rajdeo (PW 4) have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case showing complicity of the appellants and other accused persons with the crime. Dr. Purushottam Tiwari (PW 5) is said to have examined the injuries of PW 4. Dr. D.P. Gupta (PW 6) and Dr. S.K. Srivastava (PW 8) are said to have held postmortem examination on he dead bodies of Dhirendra Pratap and Lallu Prasad respectively. Shijor Prasad (PW 7) and Ram Pratap Singh (PW 10) are the formal police witnesses who took the dead bodies for postmortem examination. Jung Bahadur Yadav (PW 9) is the head constable who had drawn the first information report. Dr. K.K. Mal (PW 11) is the doctor who examined another injured Sita Ram (PW 3). S.I. Nanhu Ram (PW 12) is the investigating officer. The defence, however, examined one Thakur Prasad Yadav as DW 1 on whose statement, certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and evidence, the accused persons were armed with guns only and no other weapon. This circumstances creates doubt regarding the veracity of prosecution case. (c) The investigating officer (PW 12) who inspected the ill-fated Jeep has nowhere stated in his evidence that the he found any mark of firing thereon. (d) The reason for stay during night at Gorakhpur for settling accounts of Sopai Ghat settlement was not mentioned by the informant in the first information report nor the said fact was stated by any other witness in his statement made before the police but has been disclosed by the witnesses for the first time in court. (e) According to the evidence of witnesses, hospital was on way to the police station but no reason whatsoever has been assigned why the four injured persons were taken to the police station first and not the hospital. Further, it does not appear why the police referred three injured persons to Gorakhpur hospital instead of first referring them to Khajani hospital which was nearby the police station for giving them first aid. These facts make the prosecution case that the four injured persons were taken by PW 1 to the police station suspicious. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... currence. This witness had a motive to falsely implicate the accused persons to put pressure upon them so that they may not pursue the said case Apart from that, the case in consolidation was pending on the date of occurrence between Ram Singh, cousin of accused Kaushalendra Shahi, who is co-sharer of other accused persons, and this witness in which accused Kaushalendra Shahi was taking steps on behalf of Ram Singh. PW.2 stated before the police that he had gone to Gorakhpur on 28th July, 1978 for doing some personal work but in court he has stated that he had gone to Gorakhpur to make inquiry about the date fixed in the case under Section 392 of the Penal Code. That apart, according to PW 1, the members of prosecution party had gone to Gorakhpur for appearing in the case which was fixed for 28th July, 1978 but even according to the statement of this witness, which was made for the first time in court, he had gone to Gorakhpur for making inquiry regarding the date fixed. This witness has for the first time in court disclosed the reason for his stay during night at Gorakhpur. He has nowhere stated before the police that he stayed during night at Gorakhpur for the purposes of settlin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
