Allahabad High Court
Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on : 02.03.2022
Delivered on : 25.05.2022
Court No. - 1
(1) Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2337 of 2006
Appellant :- Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Alok Kumar Tripathi,Anil Mishra,Anilesh Tiwari,Ghanshyam Yadav,Imran Khan,Lalji Yadav,Pradeep Yadav,Prashant Singh Atal,S.A.Siddiqui,Smt.Suman Lata Singh,Umesh Pratap Yadav,Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Amar Nath Dubey,Prachish Pandey
connected with
(2) Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2355 of 2006
Appellant :- Shiv Darshan Shukla Alias Chhote Bhedi
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Amit Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Amar Nath Dubey
with
(3) Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2356 of 2006
Appellant :- Om Prakash
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Sharad Nandan Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Amar Nath Dubey
with
(4) Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2379 of 2006
Appellant :- Vija Prakash @ Darhi Mishra
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivaji Srivastava,A.C.Pandey,Akhter Abbas,Alok Kumar Yadav,Dinesh K Arya,M.E.Khan,R.N.Gupta,Ram Chandra Gupta,Satyendra Kumar Tiwari,Sharad Nandan Ojha,Shiv Kumar Pandey,Shyam Lal Mishra,Umesh Pratap Yadav,Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Amar Nath Dubey,Pawan Kumar Tiwari,Prachish Pandey
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
(Per Ramesh Sinha, J. for the Bench) (1) Four persons, namely, Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi, Om Prakash and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No.316 of 2002: State of U.P. vs. Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2002, under Sections 302/34, 506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."), Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh.
(2) Vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Pratapgarh, acquitted the appellants, Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi, Om Prakash and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra, for offences punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated hereinafter :--
"Appellants Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra :-
Under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default to undergo additional six months imprisonment.
Appellants Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash :-
Under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default to undergo additional six months imprisonment."
(3) Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2006, convict/appellant Dharam Raj Yadav alias Chhote Bhedi preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2337 of 2006, convict/appellant Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2379 of 2006, convict/appellant, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2355 of 2006 and convict/appellant Om Prakash preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2006 before this Court.
(4) Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them of by a common judgment.
(5) The case of the informant P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi, as narrated in the written report (Ext. Ka.1), is as under:-
Informant P.W.1- Achutananad Dwivedi is the resident of Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh. His elder brother Akhilanand Dwivedi (deceased) was a member of Village Panchayat Kota, Bhavaniganj and his wife Smt. Gyatri Dwivedi is village Pradhan but on account of unwellness of his wife, Akhilanand Dwivedi (deceased) was looking after the work of Village Pradhan.
On 11.06.2002, his brother Akhilanand Dwivedi went along with him to Babaganj Block in connection with work relating to Gram Panchayat on motorcycle. While reaching there, he sat in the Hall of the Block and was busy in some desk work. At that time, Dilip Kumar Pandey (P.W.2) s/o Sadashiv Pandey, r/o village Chakedi, Santosh Kumar s/o Ram Krishna Village r/o village Buddhi Dhar Ka Purva and Akhilesh Kumar Pandey s/o Krishna Kumar Pandey r/o village Dhamohan and other people of Block were present. The time was around 11 o'clock. All of a sudden, Dharamraj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh (convict/ appellant) s/o Kullu alias Ramashankar Yadav, resident of Village Sarai Chhata, Police Station Sangramgarh, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi (convict/appellant) s/o Bhagwat Dass Village Mohammad Pur Sohan, Police Station Sangramgarh, Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Misra (convict/ appellant) s/o Ram Lal resident of Chorang, Police Station Sangramgarh, with whom their old enmity was going on, reached before them and on reaching there, Shiv Darshan and Om Prakash (convicts/appellants) caught hold his brother (deceased Akhilanand Dwivedi) and Dharmraj alias Ghayanendra and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra (convicts/ appellants) armed with countrymade pistols shot his brother dead. After firing upon his brother, convicts/appellants rushed towards him (P.W.1) with the intention to kill him (P.W.1), however, he (informant), while making hue and cry, ran towards the crowd. Thereafter, convicts/appellants, who were armed with countrymade pistols, threatened to see him, later. When the incident occurred, chaos and stampede spread in the area. The nearby shopkeepers and the people present there closed their shops relentlessly and started running away. The silence spreaded all around. The deadbody of his brother was lying on the spot.
(6) Thereafter, the informant P.W.1-Achutanand Dwivedi got the written report (Ext. Ka-1) scribed by Ram Kishore, who after scribing it read it over to him. He, thereafter, put his signature on it, and proceeded to police station Sangramgarh and lodged the F.I.R.
(7) The evidence of P.W.4- Vidhya Shankar Shukla shows that he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police Station Sangramgarh in June, 2002. On 11.6.2002, informant Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1) s/o Avadh Bihari Dwivedi r/o Kota Bhavani Ganj, police station-Sangramgarh, district-Pratapgarh submitted a written report (Ext. Ka-1) of the incident, on the basis of which at 12.10 p.m., chik F.I.R. No. 29/2002, Case Crime No. 59/2002, under Section 302 I.P.C. was lodged against the convicts/ appellants, Dharamraj Yadav, Shiv Darshan Shukla, Vijay Prakash and Om Prakash. The signature of Station House Officer Ajay Kumar Srivastava was also on chik F.I.R. The chik F.I.R. was written in his presence. He proved the chik F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-3). The Investigating Officer took his statement.
The evidence of P.W.6- Ajay Prakash Srivastava shows that in June, 2002, he was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Sangramgarh. He deposed that on 11.06.2002 at 12:10 p.m. in his presence, on the basis of written report dated 11.06.2002 of informant Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1), Chik F.I.R. was lodged. He obtained necessary documents for investigation. He recorded the statement of writer of Chik Head Moharir Vidhya Shankar Shukla (P.W.4) and informant Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1) in case diary. Thereafter, he reached at the place of occurrence. On his direction, Sub-Inspector, Munna Lal Puri (P.W.5), conducted the ''panchayatnama' of the deceased (Akhilanand Dwivedi). Thereafter, he recorded the statement of eye-witness Dilip Pandey (P.W.2) and witness Akhilesh Kumar Pandey in case diary. On the pointing out of informant (P.W.1) and witnesses, he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. He seized one empty cartridge 315 bore, a bullet, a spectacle, a blood-stained pen lying around the place of the incident, before the witnesses and prepared the recovery memo. He collected plain soil and blood soaked soil in separate containers, sealed it and prepared recovery memo of the same before the witnesses. He recorded the statement of witnesses of panchayatnama, namely, Vinod Upadhyay, Karune Bahadur Singh, Rajesh Pandey, Shashi Kumar Dwivedi, Irfan Ahmad as well as S.I., Munna Lal Puri (P.W.5), while doing 'panchayatnama' proceeding, in case diary. After that on the information of informer, convict/ appellant Om Prakash was arrested and his statement was recorded in case diary. On 13.06.2002 remaining convicts/ appellants were searched but they could not be traced out.
P.W.6 had further deposed that on 14.06.2002, he filed an application in the Court for initiating proceeding against absconded accused under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") on 14.06.2002. A brief description of the postmortem was noted in the case diary and also recorded the statement of Constable Siyaram Rafiulla in the case diary. On 15.06.2002, the details of injuries of the deceased mentioned in postmortem was recorded in case diary. On 16.06.2002, Vijay Prakash (convict/appellant) was arrested and his statement was recorded in case diary. On 17.06.2002, a notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against Shiv Darshan Shukla and Dharmraj Yadav (convicts/appellants) was served. On 18.06.2002, the details of surrender by Shiv Darshan Shukla (convict/appellant) were recorded in case diary and on receipt of information about surrender of Dharam Raj Yadav (convict/appellant) in the Court of Raebareli, S.I. Mannu Lal Puri (P.W.5) was sent to Raebareli. On 26.06.2002, application for the police custody/remand of Om Prakash (convict/appellant) was submitted in the Court, which was allowed. On 29.06.2002, application for issuance of B warrant against Dharam Raj Yadav (convict/appellant) was submitted. On 1.07.2002, B warrant of Dharamraj Yadav (convict/appellant) was prepared and sent to District Jail, Raebareli and Court of C.J.M. Raebareli for its service. He was transferred to district Banda, hence, the further investigation of the case was entrusted to Station Officer Brijmani Yadav.
In his cross-examination, P.W.6-Ajay Prakash Srivastava deposed that he was present at police station when the case was registered. Before preparing the chik F.I.R., he did not see the written report of the informant (Ext. Ka-1). It is wrong to say that he had not investigated the case properly because of pressure. It is also wrong to say that all the proceedings were done anti-dated and anti-timed. It is wrong to say that he had done table work under pressure of brother-in-law of informant.
(8) The evidence of P.W.5- Mannu Lal Puri shows that in June, 2002, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sangramgarh. On 11.06.2002, he prepared ''panchayatnama' of the dead body of the deceased (Akhilanand Dwivedi) before witnesses. Paper No.7 v/3 and 7 v/4 ''panchayatnama' of deceased (Akhilanand Dwivedi) dated 11.06.2002 was written and signed by him before witnesses Karunesh Bahadur Singh, Shashi Kumar Dwivedi, Irfan Ahmend, Rajesh Pandey, Vinod Upadhyay. Paper No. 7 v/16 was C.M.O. Report, Paper No. 7 v/17 was report of Inspector, Paper No. 7 v/18 was photolash, 7 v/19 was Form No.13, Paper No. 7 v/21 specimen seal dated 11.06.2002 was written and signed by him.
In his cross-examination, P.W.5 deposed that the investigation of the case was not handed over to him. The signature of Investigating Officer was not on Ext. Ka-5. On getting the information of the death of the deceased, he first went to Block. The information was to the effect that someone was murdered in Block. After filling the ''panchayatnama', he went to the house of the deceased. He went to Block for conducting ''panchayatnama'. The body of the deceased was found in one of the room of Block. He could not tell the size of the room in which the dead body of the deceased was lying. There were many doors in that room. He knew the direction of two doors; one door was east and the other door was west. While conducting the ''panchayatnama' on the body of the deceased, he found adjacent to the left eye a blood-stained injury with a hole.
(9) The evidence of P.W.7- Brijmani Yadav shows that on 22.07.2002, he was posted as Station Officer at Police Station Sangramgarh. Due to transfer of former Investigating Officer Ajay Prakash Srivastava (P.W.6), investigation was entrusted to him on 23.07.2002. On 29.07.2002, he recorded the statement of accused Shiv Darshan Shukla in Jail with permission of the Court. On 07.08.2002, with the permission of the court, he took the statement of accused Dharamraj Yadav in the District Jail Raebareli and mentioned it in case diary. On 16.8.2002, he moved an application before C.J.M., Raebareli regarding police custody remand of accused Dharamraj Yadav, which was rejected on the ground that the matter pertains to Pratapgarh. On 21.08.2002, an application was made before Judicial Magistrate-X, Pratapgarh for police custody/remand of accused Dharamraj Yadav, which was rejected due to reason that the accused was of Raebareli. On 21.8.2002, again he recorded the statement of informant Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1). On the basis of statement, Section 34 I.P.C. was added. On 23.8.2002, search of country-made pistol was carried out at the place pointed out by convicts/appellants but it was not found. On 23.8.2002, convicts/appellants Dharamraj Yadav, Shiv Darshan Shukla, Vijay Prakash Mishra and Om Prakash were found involved in the crime, hence against them charge-sheet under Sections 302, 506/34 I.P.C. was submitted before the Court.
In his cross-examination, P.W.7-Brijmani Yadav deposed that the place where the country-made pistol was searched was not shown in site plan. He went to Babaganj Block before filing charge-sheet.
(10) P.W.3-Dr. A.C. Tripathi, Surgeon, District Hospital, Pratapgarh conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased (Akhilanand Dwivedi) on 11.06.2002 at 10:45 p.m. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-2 and has stated that following ante-mortem injuries were found on the deadbody of the deceased (Akhilanand Dwivedi):-
"1. L.W. 2 cm x 2 cm oval in shape present 2 cm. lateral to left orbital margin. Margins are inverted and blackened. Blackening and tattooing of skin around in an area of 6 cm present underlying skull bone fractured.
2. L.W. 3 cm x 3 cm oval in shape present on Rt. side of head 2 cm above Rt. ear margins everted underlying skull bone fractured. On probing injury no.2 communicated to the injury no.1.
3. L.W. 2 cm x 2 cm on left temporal region. 3 cms above left ear margins blackened and inverted. Blackening and tattooing of skin around with singeing of hairs present. Injury No. 3 is present 4 cm above and lateral to injury no.1 underlying skull bone fractured. On opening scalp bone on Rt. side of head 6 cms above Rt. ear is fractured and one bullet recovered under the scalp."
The cause of death spelt out in the autopsy report of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries.
(11) P.W.3- Dr. A.C. Tripathi has reiterated the aforesaid cause of death of the deceased in his deposition and has deposed before the trial Court that only three injuries were found on the body of the deceased and blood was oozing out from all the three injuries. All three injuries were visible clearly with naked eye. The direction of injury No.2 was horizental; the direction of Injury No.1 was not downward; and the direction of Injury No.3 was also not downward. He further deposed that the direction of injuries depends upon the direction of shot of the firearm weapons. The direction of Injury No.3 was horizontal slightly upward.
(12) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 5.10.2002 and the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C. 5), Pratapgarh, framed charges against convicts/appellants, Dharmraj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi, Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra and Om Prakash, under Sections 302/506/34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of denial.
(13) During trial, in all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses viz. P.W.1-Achutanand Dwivedi, who is the informant of the case, P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey, who is an eyewitness of the incident, P.W.3- Dr. A.C. Tripathi, who conducted post-mortem of the body of deceased, P.W.4- Vidya Shankar Shukla, who lodged Chik F.I.R., P.W.5- Mannu Lal Puri, who conducted panchayatnama, P.W.6- Ajay Prakash Srivastav, who is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.7- Brijmani Yadav, who is also conducted investigation of the case after transfer of Shri Ajay Prakash Srivastav (P.W.6). Apart from above, one Noor Mohammad was also examined as C.W.1. From the side of defence, Harishchand Singh and Om Prakash Shukla, were examined as DW-1 and DW-2.
(14) After completion of prosecution, statements of convicts/ appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.
(15) Now, we would first like to deal with the evidence of informant, P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi, who deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has five brothers. The name of elder brother is Akhilanand (deceased); he is the second one; the third one is Abhayanand; the fourth one is Akhandanand; and fifth one is Omananda. Before the incident, Akhilanand (deceased) was the Pradhan of the village. The wife of Akhilanand (deceased), namely, Gayatri Devi was the Pradhan of village Kota Bhawaniganj. On the day of the incident, Gayatri was ill. His brother Akhilanand (deceased) was looking after the work of village pradhan.
P.W.1 had further deposed that the incident is of 11.06.2002. On that day, he and his brother Akhilanand went to the Block Babaganj on motorcycle. Santosh Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar, Dilip Kumar and some employees of Block were also sitting in the hall of the Babaganj Block. Akhilanand was writing an application. Meanwhile, four persons, Shiv Darshan alias Chotte Bhedi, Dharamraj alias Gyanendra Singh, Om Prakash, Vijay Prakah alias Darhi Mishra (convicts/appellants) armed with country-made pistols came and convicts/appellants Shiv Darshan and Om Prakash caught hold Akhilanand (deceased) along with his chair and convicts/appellants Dharamraj and Vijay Prakash fired on the left side of Akhilanand with country-made pistols. Thereafter, people present there including him ran in order to save themselves. Convicts/appellants Shiv Darshan and Om Prakash showed the country-made pistols towards them and after that people including him ran away. Thereafter, all the four convicts/appellants went towards road of the western gate showing country-made pistols on motorcycle. Convict/appellant Shiv Darshan had built a house in his village though he was the resident of another village. Akhilanand (deceased) Pradhan got demolished the said house with the permission of S.D.M. The daughter-in-law of convict/appellant Shiv Darshan was Anganwadi Karyaktri in his village, whose services were stopped by Pradhan. Om Prakash (convict/appellant) was a resident of his village and his wife had filed nomination in the election of Pradhan; her nomination was against the wife of deceased; and her nomination was rejected by Akhilanand (deceased). Akhilanand executed lease deed of a land in favour of a Harijan, whose possession was with Om Prakash (convict/appellant). Gram Pradhan Akhilanand filed a case against Om Prakash. Before 15-20 days of the incident, altercation took place between Vijay Prakash and Akhilanand, for which a case was going on.
In his cross-examination, P.W.1-Achutanand Dwivedi deposed that Gyatri Devi was pradhan since 2½-3 years ahead of the incident. The wife of Om Prakash (convict/appellant) contested the election of Gram Pradhan against Gyatri Devi. Apart from them, few man also contested the election of Pradhan. Those persons who had contested the election of Pradhan against Gayatri Devi, did not withdraw their nomination. Till the time of the incident, Up-Pradhan was not in his village. After the removal of Akhilanand, Gayatri Devi was looking after the work of the village pradhan as she was elected as Pradhan. At the time of the incident, he was the Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gistha. Before 2½ years of the incident, he won the election of Up-Pradhan of Village Panchayat Gistha unopposed.
P.W.1 had further deposed in his cross-examination that he had five brothers, namely, Akhilanand, Achutananda, Abhayananda, Akhdananada, Omanada, out of which Akhilananda was murdered. His brother Omananad was also called Lallu. He had two sisters, out of which, one sister was married in Mirzapur with Shri D.P. Shukla. Before the incident, his brother-in-law, D.P. Shukla was posted as Inspector in the same district. His brother-in-law, D.P. Shukla, at the time of incident, was posted as Deputy S.P. CID in District Kanpur and Hardoi. His brother-in-law (behnoi), D.P. Shukla, had come to his house on the second day of the incident. His brother-in-law, D.P. Shukla had might been called by some relative and, therefore, he came on getting information of the incident. He did not know whether his brother Akhilanand (deceased) had a criminal history or not. He also did not know whether criminal cases were going on against him or not. At this moment, he could not remember whether he was accused with his brother Akhilanand or not. He further deposed that a criminal case was filed against him, in which case his brother Akhilanand was also accused. He did not remember that under which offence the said case was registered and whether in Case Crime No.13/89 under Sections 307/504/506 I.P.C. he was arrayed as accused or not but he remembered that three or four criminal criminal cases were against him. He did not remember whether Case Crime No.152/81 under Sections 147/148/ 149/307 IPC was against him or not. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of country-made pistol under Section 25 Arms Act. The police personnel themselves implicated him by implanting country-made pistol. He did not remember whether in Case Crime No.170/81 under Sections 394/307 I.P.C. was initiated against him or not. He also did not remember that in this case, his deceased brother was accused along with him or not. Case Crime No.120/99 under Sections 147/341/186/336/352/353/188/427 was initiated against him alongwith 30-35 persons. In this case, his brother, Akhilanand (deceased), was accused along with him. Case Crime No.17/2000 under Sections 323/504/506 IPC was lodged against him. In this case also, his deceased brother was accused along with him. His brother Akhilanand (deceased) had no criminal history. 10-12 criminal cases were not initiated against his deceased brother. He knew that Crime No.71/91 under section 107/116 and Crime No.17/2000 under sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. were initiated against his deceased brother. He further deposed that he had a revolver-licence on the address of district Pratapgarh since 2 years ago. This licence was taken during the lifetime of Akhilanand and after his death when number came, he purchased the rovolver. It is wrong to say that on account of having criminal history, their arms licences were not sanctioned in this district, therefore, they got the arms licences on the address of Allahabad with the help of his brother-in-law D.P. Shukla. He himself deposed that he did not move any application from Pratapgarh and did not show his permanent residence at Pratapgarh. He and his brother originally are residents of District Pratapgarh. He took the licence revolver 2 years ago.
P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi further deposed in his cross-examination that witness of the case, namely, Santosh Kumar is his son-in-law and his house is at a distance of 7 kms. away from the house of Om Prakash (convict/appellant). The house of Santosh is about 2 Km. away from the place of occurrence. The house of Akhilesh is 3 Kms. away from the house of Om Prakash and 7 Kms. away from the place of occurrence. All the accused in this case are residents of different villages viz. (1) Accused Dharamraj was a resident of Sarai Chhata and his house is 3 kms. east of the place of occurrence; (2) Accused Shiv Darshan was a resident of Mauja Mohammadpur Sohal which is about 6 kms. away from the place of occurrence on the east and south corner; (3) Accused Vijay Prakash was a resident of Mauja Chowrang and he has built a house on the road and his house is two and a half kilometers east of the place of incident; and (4) Accused Om Prakash was a resident of the Purva of Kota Bhawaniganj Shobhai and his house is 7 kms. away on the east side of the place of occurrence. Two or three years prior to the incident, enmity was going on between accused and his deceased brother. He has neither friendship nor enmity with the accused. His brother (deceased) did not use to come to Block everyday. He used to come when he had work. He had not seen the accused on the day of the incident. The accused Om Prakash is a teacher. He did not know that he is a teacher in Bahoripur. He did not know that he constructed his residence at Lalganj Adhara. He did not even know that how far is Lalganj Adhara from the place of occurrence. He knew that first wife of accused Om Prakash had died and he solemnized second marriage. He did not know the name of the second wife. He did not know that Manorama B.J.P., President, Woman Cell Babaganj before the incident. He did not know whether the news of his brother's death was published in the newspaper. He did not read that it was printed in the newspaper that his brother was beaten up by outsiders and ran away. He did not file case against 'Press'. After the incident, the body of his brother was not taken to the village. It is wrong to say that after the incident, they took the corpse home in a rage.
(16) P.W.2- Dilip Kumar Pandey, who is an eye-witness of the incident, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that the incident took place on 11.06.2002 at 11 a.m. The incident took place in Babaganj Block. He went to Block to meet J.E. regarding his contract. He was sitting in the hall of the Block near the eastern side of the desk of Senior Clerk and Santosh Kumar Shukla, Akhilesh Pandey and Achutananad Dwivedi (P.W.1) were sitting next to him but he did not know Achutanand Dwivedi. He knew deceased (Akhilanand Dwivedi), who was sitting in front of I.R.D. clerk of the Block. After meeting, when Akhilanand Dwivedi (deceased) was talking to clerk and writing something, Dharamraj Yadav, Shiv Darshan Shukla, Vijay Prakash Mishra, Om Prakash (convicts/appellants) came from the western door of hall and Om Prakash and Shiv Darshan (convicts/appellants) caught hold the Akhilanand (deceased) and Dharamraj Yadav and Vijay Prakash (convicts/appellants) fired. Thereafter, Akhilanand died after being shot by country made pistol on left temple. Achutanand (P.W.1) ran to save him and raised alarm. Then Om Prakash, Shiv Darshan, Dharamraj and Vijay Prakash (convicts/appellants) showed country made pistols to Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1). Thereafter, they all stood and then, Achutanand Dwivedi ran towards western door. After that, convicts/appellants ran away waving their pistols and threatening to kill Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1). The convicts/appellants had shot the deceased (Akhilanand) on account of enmity. The wife of Akhilanand was Pradhan and due to her illness, Akhilanand got the charge of Pradhan. He stayed at the place of the incident for about 7-8 minutes. After that as his child was ill whose medicine was to be taken in Babaganj, therefore, he went home. After 1½ hours, when he returned to the Block again, he saw that ''panchayatnama' of the body of deceased (Akhilanand) was being done and the Inspector was making inquiry. He too was inquired by the Inspector.
In his cross-examination, P.W.2- Dilip Kumar Pandey deposed that he was expelled out from district for three months under Goondas Act. It has been more than one year since he was expelled out from the district. He and the informant, Achutananad Dwivedi Dwivedi (P.W.1) had no relationship and friendship. It is wrong to say that he was companion of informant and his brother. There were no criminal case registered against him in the police station Sangramgarh. The criminal cases were instituted against him in police station Maheshganj but all the cases were settled on the basis of compromise. A case of harassment of Harijan was instituted against him in Maheshganj, in which the brother of informant Bablu was co-accused alongwith him. No such case was ever lodged in which all the brothers of informant and witness of the case Akhilesh were co-accused along with him. Crime No.120/99, under Sections 147/341/186/336/352/353/188 I.P.C. was not registered against him. His village is at Chakedih. He had three brothers, namely, Suresh, Rajan and he himself. He did not know whether in Case Crime No.120/99 his brother were accused along with him or not. He is a contractor by profession and worked on master roll. He does not have any registration regarding contract. He worked on muster-roll in Block. His Block is Rampur Sangramgarh. Babaganj is not his Block. Babaganj Block is about 2 Km. from his house. He left his home at 10:00-10:15 a.m. on the day of the incident. He went to Block to meet J.E. Santosh Kumar but J.E. Santosh Kumar did not meet him, therefore, he waited for him in the Block. He had not met with J.E. before the incident or after the incident on that day. Achutananad Dwivedi (P.W.1) and Akhilanand (deceased) were already sitting there when he reached Block. When he reached the Block, one or two clerks were present there and these were the same clerks which were present at the time of incident. He was unable to tell the name of these clerks. N.R.P. clerk was sitting there along with another clerk whose name and designation was not known to him. He was also a licence holder of a gun. His gun licence is on the address of Mohalla Dahilamau, police station Kotwali Nagar. His house is not situated at Dahilamau. Akhilananad (deceased) was sitting facing north and was talking and writing and he was talking with N.R.P. clerk and not talking to any other clerk. He was sitting facing west. Achutananad Dwivedi (P.W.1) was sitting next to him on his north side. Akhilanand (deceased) was sitting 4-5 meters to the west of him. He went to the Block by motorcycle. His motorcycle was parked inside the Block boundary. The Inspector inquired from him about the incident. On the day of incident, the Inspector interrogated him. Except on the day of the incident, he was never inquired by Inspector. He did not tell the place of parking of his motorcycle to the Inspector. He told the place of his sitting to the Inspector. He had personal information of enemies and friends of Achutananad Dwivedi (P.W.1) and Akhilanand (deceased). He knew about their families. He further deposed that on the day of incident, he had gone to Block in relation to the contract and did not go for any personal work. He did not tell the Inspector that he went to Block to meet J.E. regarding contract. He had told first time in the court that he went to Block to meet J.E. with regard to a contract. On the day of the incident, his child was ill. The age of the child was 10-12 years. The name of his child is Lalit. The child had a fever. He did not take medicine for the child from any doctor, but took the medicine from the medical store at Babaganj in the shop of Anil. He did not tell to the Inspector that child had a fever for whose medicine he went home. He did not even tell the Inspector that he returned after 1 ½ hours in the Block.
(17) C.W.1- Noor Mohammad, who is posted as Senior Clerk at Babaganj Block, District Pratapgarh, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 11.06.2002 at 11 a.m. He was working on his seat. He was sitting on one seat and A.D.O. M.I. Ram Bahadur Kushwaha was sitting on the other seat. Akhilanand Dwivedi was sitting in front of him. Akhilananad was writing a letter regarding payment or construction. Shesh Shukla was standing holding the letter in front of him and at the same time, suddenly he heard noise and on listening it, he lost the pen from his hand. He looked here and there but no one was visible outside. However, when he looked inside the room, he saw that blood was oozing out from the head of the Akhilanand Pradhan. In front of Pradhan, a man was wrapping a 'gamchha' on his face and one another man was also there. He left the cupboard open and ran away.
In his cross-examination C.W.1- Noor Mohammad deposed that he did not make any such statement that accused Dharamraj Yadav and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi armed with country-made pistols had fired on the left side of the head due to which, Akhilanand Dwivedi died as soon as he got the fire injury. He did not give this statement to the Inspector that he did not want to get into controversy with these people and he did not want to testify because they can harm him too. He also did not give this statement to the Inspector that all the employees were present; they were doing their work; at the same time, four persons reached and entered the 'Hall'; surrounded Akhilanand Dwivedi; and two men caught Akhilanand Dwivedi.
He denied the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also denied that he gave statement to the police that the accused fled away through the western gate of the 'Hall' threatening to kill Achutanand Dwivedi (P.W.1) and see him again. He even did not make a statement that any person, who is present, made any effort to apprehend or oppose them. They were all stunned at the time of the incident. There was silence. He had not even given a statement that due to this incident, the open shops were closed and the movement of people had stopped and he already knew accused Dharamraj and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra. After the incident, he and the employees of Block became so frightened that they immediately stopped work and moved here and there. Hearing the sound of fire, they got scared and started running away. It is wrong to say that he is changing his statement because of fear of the accused.
C.W.1- Noor Mohammad further deposed in his cross-examination that the information was given at the police station about the incident happened in the Block and Achutananad Dwivedi (P.W.1), brother of deceased, was also informed at home. Then Achutananad Dwivedi (P.W.1) came. The Inspector had not come till the arrival of Achutanand (P.W.1). On the date of the incident, Akhilanand (deceased) had come alone by motorcycle. Achutanand (P.W.1) did not accompany him. Achutanand (P.W.1) was not present at the time of the incident. The Inspector took him to the police station.
(18) D.W.1- Harishchand Singh, who was posted as B.D.O. at Handiya District Allahabad, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 11.06.2002, in his development Block, Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava was not working as J.E. On that date, Shri Ram Bahadur Kushwaha was posted as J.E. M-I (Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation) in his development Block and another J.E. Sri Sanjay Srivastava was posted.
In his cross-examination D.W.1-Harishchand Singh deposed that he did not come with attendance register of employees working on 11.06.2002, therefore, he cannot tell that on 11.06.2002, how many officials were working in his Block Babaganj as well as details of employees. Apart from J.E. in his Block, J.E. or officers of other departments used to come for their departmental work.
(19) D.W.2-Om Prakash Shukla, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he knew the accused Om Prakash Mishra, who is present in the Court. His father's name is Ramsajeevan Mishra, resident of Kota Bhawaniganj, Shobai Ka Purva, Thana Sangramgarh. His house is in Lalganj Azhara Market itself. They lived with his family as tenants before the incident. On 11.06.2002, at around 9:00-9:30 p.m., the local police and the police of Sangramgarh came to his place and knocked his door and when he came out after opening the door, he told his name as Om Prakash Shukla and thereafter, Inspector asked him to come with him to the police station, on it he asked the reason thereof, then a constable present there told that it is not that person but the other person is Om Prakash Mishra. On asking the Inspector, he told that he had a tenant in the name of Om Prakash Mishra. At that time, accused Om Prakash Mishra was sleeping on the terrace. The police caught him in front of him and took him to the police station. When he asked, the Inspector said that some inquiry has to be done. He will leave after interrogation. When Om Prakash did not return from the police station overnight, he went to the police station Sangramgarh with his wife, where Station Officer told them that some inquiry is to be done from him. On the next day, he came to know that Om Prakash Mishra was challaned under Section 302 I.P.C.
In his cross-examination D.W.2- Om Prakash Shukla deposed that there were twelve rooms in his house. Out of them, four rooms were given on rent. There were no agreement of rent with the tenants. One room with kitchen was given on rent for five hundred rupees. Accused Om Prakash is a teacher by profession and posted at Bahoripur.
(20) The learned trial Judge believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and found the appellants Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. and appellants Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C., and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated in paragraph-2. However, the appellants were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 506 I.P.C.
(21) Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, Shri Amit Chaudhary, Shri Sharad Nandan Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants in criminal appeal No.2337 of 2006, 2355 of 2006 and 2356 of 2006 respectively and Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for complainant as well as Shri Pankaj Tewari, learned Additional Government Advocate for State/respondent.
(22) It has been argued by Counsel for appellants that the allegations levelled against the appellants that the convicts/appellants- Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra have fired at the deceased while co-convicts/ appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash are said to have caught hold the deceased, who was sitting in a chair at the time of the incident, appears to be doubtful as the post-mortem report of the deceased completely belies the prosecution story. They next argued that the dimension of the firearm injuries found on the person of the deceased does not support the prosecution case, as is also evident from the evidence of P.W.3- Dr. A.C. Tripathi. They further argued that two convict/appellants, namely, Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra, had fired at the deceased, who was sitting on a chair at the place of occurrence shows that the injury sustained by him was not from the upward to the downward direction as the same is found to be horizontal one, as per evidence of P.W.3- Dr. A.C. Tripathi. They next argued that the presence of P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi, who is informant and real brother of the deceased and P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey, who is alleged eyewitness of the occurrence is also doubtful. They further argued that the incident had taken place at Block Baba Ganj, whereas from the evidence of P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi, it is evident that at the time of the incident he was sitting at the shop of one Rajendra Gupta which was at Lakhpeda Bazar. They further submitted that P.W.1 is also admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen the accused appellants on the day of the incident. Similarly, he contended that P.W.2- Dileep Kumar, who had gone to the Block Baba Ganj was also not present at the time of the incident, nor had witnessed the incident and because of village party bandi, he has deposed against the convicts/appellants. They further submitted that the deceased was a man of criminal antecedents and there were seven cases pending against him and because of which, he was done to death by some unknown miscreants and the accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of inimical relationship with the family of the complainant. They further submitted that P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi, the informant, himself is a man of criminal antecedents and there were cases pending against him which shows that his evidence is not a reliable one and further he is highly interested and partisan witness being the brother of the deceased. They further argued that one of the relative of the P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi and the deceased i.e. brother-in-law of P.W.1 and deceased, namely, D.P. Shukla, was Deputy S.P. and due to his influence in order to work out the present murder. The convict/appellants because of inimical relationship with the complainant and the deceased, were falsely roped in the present case. They further submitted that C.W.1-Noor Mohammad (an eyewitness of the incident), who was an employee of Block Baba Ganj, was examined as a Court Witness and he was present at the place of occurrence when the incident happened, has not deposed against the convicts/appellants and nor stated their involvement in the present case.
(23) Thus, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the trial court has misread the evidence on record and convicted and sentenced the appellants. They further submitted that so far as the convicts/appellants, Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra, who had allegedly fired on the deceased, their participation in the incident is absolutely a false one. As per prosecution case, the two appellants are said to have caught hold to the deceased while he was sitting on a chair in the 'Hall' of the Block Baba Ganj and was writing some application and the other two appellants fired at him with country made pistols and it is highly improbable and beyond imagination that the persons would risk their life while the deceased is being shot by the co-accused persons. They further submitted that the convicts/appellants had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased as they belong to different villages and not that of the co-accused, who had shot at the deceased. They further submitted that in statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case because of inimical relationship with the complainant and the deceased and under the influence of their brother-in-law, D.P. Shukla, Deputy S.P. (24) Learned counsel for appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Balwantbhai B. Patel vs. State of Gujrat and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 684 and submitted that no recovery of any incriminating article at the pointing out or from possession of the appellants was made; and they have no criminal antecedents.
(25) Learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A., on the other hand, have vehementally opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for appellants and submitted that the incident took place at 11:00 a.m. at a public place i.e. in Block Baba Ganj and the deceased was accompanied by his real brother, P.W.1-Achutanand Dwivedi, who along with P.W.2-Dileep Kumar Pandey, have witnessed the incident and seen the deceased being shot by two convicts/appellants, namely, Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra and further the deceased was caught hold by convicts/appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla Alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash. They further submitted that the medical report completely corroborates the prosecution case. They further submitted that simply because P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi and P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey had criminal antecedents, cannot be a ground to cast doubt on the prosecution case. They further submitted that the contention of counsel for the appellants that P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi was not present at the time of the incident, is a fallacious one, as the P.W.1 has categorically stated that prior to the incident he was sitting at the shop of Rajendra Gupta at Lakh Peda Bazar but at the time of the incident, he was present at the place of occurrence with the deceased at Block Baba Ganj and he has denied the suggestion that the deceased was done to death by some unknown miscreants because he was a man of criminal antecedents. They further submitted that the post-mortem report of the deceased shows that he received blackening and tattooing and margins were inverted and blackening was present around the area of injury no.1 and 3 and a bullet was also recovered from the scalp of the deceased. They further submitted that the deceased was shot by the two appellants, namely, Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra from a close range and because of which, blackening and tattooing were found in injury nos.1 and 2 and margins were also inverted and blackened. They further submitted that C.W.1- Noor Mohammad, who was an eyewitness of occurrence and employee of Block Baba Ganj, who was examined as C.W.1, did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile but the presence of P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi and P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey, who is an independent witness, goes to show that they have seen the incident and the medical report of the deceased fully corroborates their ocular testimony and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, hence, the appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
(26) After having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court along with its record.
(27) Admittedly, the incident took place at 11 a.m. in Block Baba Ganj, where the deceased was present and the appellants, Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra reached the place of occurrence armed with country made pistol and fired shot at the deceased, whereas the other two appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla Alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash caught hold to the deceased, who was sitting on a chair and writing an application at the place of occurrence. The dead body of the deceased was found in a pool of blood. The inquest proceedings were conducted by P.W.5- S.I. Munna Lal Puri and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for post-mortem in the custody of the police constables and the post-mortem was conducted by P.W.3- Dr. A.C. Tripathi, who found three gun shot injuries on the person of the deceased. As per opinion of Doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemmorhage as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. The bullet was recovered under the scalp. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged within one hour of the incident, on the same date at 12:10 p.m. by P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi at police station Sangramgarh. On the basis of a written report submitted to the concerned police station, P.W.6- Ajay Prakash Srivastava, who took over the investigation of the present case completed the formalities of the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellants and proved the same as Ext. Ka-14.
(28) The contention of learned counsel for appellants that the presence of P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi and P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey at the place of occurrence is doubtful, is not at all acceptable by this Court as in the F.I.R., P.W.1 has categorically stated that he along with his brother had gone to Block Baba Ganj on a motorcycle and his brother was doing some writing work in the hall of the said Block and was talking with people and at that time, P.W.2- Dileep Kumar of Village Chakedi along with Santosh Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar Pandey were also present with many other people in the hall. The incident narrated by him that he had seen the deceased being shot by appellants, Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra, who have armed with country made pistols and other two appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla Alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash, caught hold the deceased, while he was sitting on the chair because of previous inimical relationship with them. P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi also deposed before the trial Court about the manner in which the incident has taken place disclosing the participation of all the appellants in the present case. In the cross-examination, though he has stated that he did not see any accused at the place of occurrence, which appears to be only a bald statement made by him which further does not cast doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence from his evidence before the trial court. He has admitted the fact that he was at the shop of Rajendra Gupta which was situated at Lakhpeda Bazar, prior to the incident meaning thereby that at the time of the incident he was present at Block Baba Ganj along with his brother. He has further denied the suggestion that his brother was done to death by some unknown miscreants because he was a man of criminal antecedents and under the influence of his brother-in-law, D.P. Shukla, Deputy S.P., he has falsely deposed against the appellants. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey, who had come for some work at Block Baba Ganj has also categorically stated that the two appellants, namely, Dharam Raj Yadav Alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash @ Darhi Mishra had shot dead the deceased with country made pistols while he was sitting on a chair and doing some writing work and talking to the people in the Hall and he too has in his evidence stated about the presence of P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi at the place of occurrence. There seems to be nothing on record to show that there is any such infirmity or discrepancy in his evidence which may raise doubt about his testimony. P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey appears to be a quite natural and an independent witness of the occurrence, hence his testimony cannot be doubted. So far as the argument of learned counsel for appellants that the deceased was shot dead by the accused while they were standing and deceased was sitting on chair and the dimension of injuries shows that it was not downward as it was a horizontal one, hence, the prosecution case is belied by the medical report, does not impress this Court as it is not known as to which way the bullet would travel when the same is shot by the accused. The other argument of learned counsel for appellants that C.W.1- Noor Mohammad, who was an employee of the Block Baba Ganj, an eyewitness of the occurrence, has not disclosed the involvement of the appellants in the present case, hence the appellants be acquitted has no substance, as the said witness has been summoned by the court and has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile, goes to show that he is won over by the accused-appellants. The submission of Shri Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel on behalf of two appellants that as per the prosecution case, they have been assigned the role of catching hold the deceased, while he was sitting on the chair and other two accused persons shot at deceased with fire arm, is a false one as the two appellants, will not risk their life in catching hold because when the co-accused fired shot at the deceased form a close range. The said argument appears to be not tenable, as it is true that the manner in which the incident has been narrated by the prosecution to have taken place and the nature of the injury which was sustained by the deceased shows that he was fired shots by the two appellants from a close range as margins were inverted and blackening and tattooing were found present on injury no.1 and 3, it would be hardly possible by the two appellants to caught hold the deceased and the reason given by them for their false implication by P.W.1- Achutanand Dwivedi and P.W.2- Dileep Kumar Pandey, cannot be ruled out.
(29) It is true that it is a case of direct evidence and motive has hardly any significance but the role which has been assigned to the appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash appears to be exaggerated one and there false implication cannot be ruled out.
(30) In view of the forgoing discussions, the participation of the two appellants, namely, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash appears to be doubtful and they are entitled to be given ''benefit of doubt' and their conviction and sentenced is liable to be set aside.
(31) In the result, criminal appeal nos. 2355 of 2006 and 2356 of 2006 are hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Pratapgarh, so far as it relates to the appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash is hereby set aside. Convicts/appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Convicts/appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash are in jail and they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if no longer required in any other criminal case.
The appellants, Shiv Darshan Shukla alias Chhote Bhedi and Om Prakash is directed to file personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(32) So far as appellants, namely, Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra are concerned, it transpires from the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they were the appellants, Dharm Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra, who committed the murder of deceased in broad day light; ocular testimonies of the prosecution witnesses fully corroborates the medical reports; and the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against them. Hence the trial Court has rightly held guilty and convicted the said two appellants by the impugned judgment and order.
(33) In view of the aforesaid, Criminal Appeal No. 2337 of 2006 and 2379 of 2006 are liable to be dismissed, which are hereby dismissed.
Convicts/appellants Dharam Raj Yadav alias Gyanendra Singh and Vijay Prakash alias Darhi Mishra are in jail and they shall serve the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.
(34) Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for information, necessary action and for compliance.
[Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.] [Ramesh Sinha, J.]
Order Date :- 25.05.2022
Shubhankar