Allahabad High Court
Kuber Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. on 24 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1744
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 19.12.2019 Delivered on 24.02.2020 Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 689 of 1996 Appellant :- Kuber Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- V.S.Singh, Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs.Sunita Agarwal, J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.) (1) Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Sri Siya Ram Sahu, learned counsels for the appellant No.1, Sri Ram Singh and Sri J.N.Yadav, learned counsels for appellant Nos.2, 4 & 5 and Sri L.D.Rajbhar, learned AGA assisted by Sri Prem Shankar Mishra for the State-respondent.
(2) The instant appeal has been filed by accused-appellants Kuber Singh, Naresh Singh, Awadesh Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh & Sukhbeer Singh against the judgment and order dated 11.04.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Banda, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial No.187 of 1991 convicting the appellant nos.1 and 2 namely Kuber Singh s/o Barku Singh Thakur and Naresh Singh s/o Ramadhar Thakur, under section 148 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each, further sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. and convicting the appellant nos.3, 4 & 5 namely Awadhesh Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh & Sukhbeer Singh all sons of Ramadhar Thakur have been sentenced under section 147 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each of the appellants and sentenced under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(3) The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:-
(4) That on 03.06.1991, the informant Shiv Mohan Singh alongwith his son Raj Kishore Singh (deceased) and grand-son Ashish Singh accompanied by one Devendra Singh (nephew of the informant), had gone to Baberu market with a bullock-cart. They had reached the said market at around 10.00 a.m. The informant purchased stones from the said market and after the same, they all were coming back to their village-Kauhara, Police Station Baberu. The bullock-cart was being driven by Raj Kishore Singh whereas Ashish Singh was sitting on the bullock-cart. The other two persons namely the informant Shiv Mohan Singh and Devendra Singh were following the said bullock-cart from a distance of 50 to 60 paces. The entire party reached the boarder of their village at about 7.00 p.m. All of a sudden, the accused-persons came out from behind the Babool trees. At that time, the accused Kuber Singh and Naresh Singh were having axes (Kulhari) in their hands whereas the remaining accused-persons were armed with lathis. The accused persons exhorted each other by saying that the enemies were there and they had to do away with them. They approached the bullock-cart and got the same stopped. The bullocks were freed and made to run away. Thereafter the accused persons with their weapons in their hands started beating Raj Kishore Singh and Ashish Singh. Both died on the spot. The accused-persons threw the body of Raj Kishore Singh by the side of road and that of Ashish Singh on the road. The informant and Devendra Singh raised hue and cry and rushed to intervene but they were chased by the accused-persons and hence they ran away from the spot. The informant came to his village and told the village-fellows about the said incident. He could not gather courage to lodge FIR in the night. However, he could muster courage in the morning and got FIR scribed by one Rajbeer Singh and lodged the same at police station concerned. The informant had brought the dead-bodies from the spot and kept them in the house.
(5) The police registered a case mentioned in the FIR, which is shown as Exhibit Ka-4, which was lodged at 6.45 a.m. on 4th June, 1991 by Shiv Mohan Singh s/o Madhav Singh Thakur P.W.-1 at Police Station Baberu, District Banda.
(6) With the informant's report, case was registered as Case Crime No.133 of 1991, under sections 147, 148, 302 I.P.C.. S.I. Nand Kishore commenced the investigation. The case recovery memo of blood stained and plain Khapley and Kappachey at cemented jali and blood stained safi was prepared. On 04.06.1991, recovery of blood stained axe and two bamboo lathis used, was prepared on 07.06.1991 as Exhibit Ka-26 sent to Vidhi Vigyan Proyogshala (Forensic Laboratory). On 04.06.1991, inquest was done and dead bodies were forwarded for autopsy to the District Hospital. Postmortem was conducted on 05.06.1991 by Dr. M.C. Mittal P.W.-2, which are Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3.
(7) Dr. M.C.Mittal, P.W.-2 found following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Raj Kishore, s/o Shiv Mohan Singh Thakur.
Internal Examination:-
1. Head and Neck :- see injury
2. Bones of Scalp or skull :- Cut and depressed fracture of frontal and left parietal bone.
3. Membrances :- Lacerated bone deep (sic) injury
4. Brain :- Lacerated bone deep injury, stood fingered and liquefied.
5. Base :- None Muscularity :- Middle aged men of average (sic). Eyes closed, mouth semi-open. R.M. passed off compeled, deposition set in the form of (sic), Abdominal Bruits & Peeling of skin and loosing of hairs. Maggots are not seen.
External Examination:-
1. Incised wound 4 c.m.x .5 c.m.x bonedeep on the top of head 11 c.m. above left ear. Margin are clear cut. Tailing towards front or section cut and depressed fracture left parietal bone and lacerated brain matter.
2. Incised wound 3 c.m. x .5 c.m. x bonedeep on the front of head 6 c.m. above left eye brow. Margin clear-cut, (sic) front or section cut x depressed fracture 3 c.m and lacerated brain.
3. Lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 5 c.m. x bonedeep at the right side of head, 7 c.m. above right ear.
4. Abrasion 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right side head and forehead above right eye.
5. Multiple abrasion Contusion 11 c.m. x 10 c.m. above left side of lower joint (sic).
6. Abraded contusion are 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the front of neck and chin.
7. Abrasion 6 x 1 c.m. on the back of left hand.
(8) Following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Ashish Singh son of Raj Kishore Thakur.
Internal Examination:-
1. Bones of Scalp :- Fracture right parietal deep (sic).
2. Membrances :- (sic) congested.
3. Brain :- Lacerated injury
4. Base :- None External Examination:-
1. Incised wound 4 c.m.x 1 c.m.x bonedeep on the front of forehead, 2 c.m. above back of neck. Margin clear cut. Tailing towards or section frontal of the (sic) cut sorace mane.
2. Lacerated wound 4 x 1.5 c.m. x bonedeep on the right side of head 6 c.m. above ear on section. Multiple fracture of right parietal bone and sepacha of (sic) as (sic) and fractured (sic).
3. Abraded contusion 3 x 2 c.m. on the left side of face of (sic) fracture nasal bone.
4. Abrasion 7x 4 c.m. on the right side cheek.
5. Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m. x.5 c.m. bonedeep alongwith the margin of (sic).
6. Multiple abraded contusion are over front of cheek and part of chest and 10 x 8 c.m.
7. Lacerated wound 0.5 x .5 c.m. over left side of lower lib contusion and underlying fracture of body (sic).
(9) The investigating officer proceeded with the investigation and submitted chargesheet against the accused persons under sections 147, 148, 302 and 34 I.P.C. and on the pointing out of the appellants, the weapons used in the commission of offence had been recovered. The blood stained clothes were sent for chemical analysis. Human blood was found on the axe which was used by the appellants and pieces of wood taken from the Bullock-cart. On the other articles, blood was disintegrated. The report of the forensic laboratory exhibit Ka 32 was proved by the investigating officer. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 147, 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried as they were falsely implicated in the present case.
(10) The prosecution examined P.W.-1 Shiv Mohan Singh, father of the deceased Raj Kishore Singh and grandfather of the deceased Ashish Singh.
(11) The prosecution also examined Dr.M.C.Mittal, P.W.-2 who had conducted the postmortem report.
(12) P.W.-3 S.I. Nand Kishore, who arrested the accused persons, prepared the site plan and recovery memo during the course of investigation. The investigating officer found clinching and credible material against the accused persons.
(13) After examination of formal witnesses, statement of accused persons were recorded under sections 313 Cr.P.C. who had tried to give different colour to the prosecution version and stated that due to previous enmity they had been falsely implicated. They denied having participated in the incident and stated that they would give evidence but as a matter of fact they led no evidence.
(14) The prosecution to prove its case, examined Shiv Mohan Singh as P.W.-1, who is the eye witness in the case. Deceased Raj Kishore Singh was his son and the deceased Ashish Singh was his grandson. He was produced to prove the factum of murder and involvement of the accused persons with their specific roles. He also proved that there was a motive for the commission of the said gruesome murder. He stated that before the said murder, an altercation between him and accused had ensued in which accused Sukhbir Singh, Awdhesh Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh and Naresh Singh had fought with him and had also beaten him with fists and kicks. There had been F.I.R.'s from both the sides. Further he stated that the aforesaid murder was committed due to the said enmity. The informant Chandra Shekhar Singh stated that Devendra Singh, who was his nephew, had been won over by the accused persons. In that event, the prosecution did not produce him and it remained a case of single and solitary evidence of P.W.-1, so far as the facts of the case are concerned.
(15) Dr. M.C.Mittal P.W.-2 was produced by the prosecution. P.W.-2 had conducted postmortem on the dead bodies of the deceased persons. The autopsy of deceased Raj Kishore Singh s/o Shiv Mohan was done on 05.06.1991 at 5.00 p.m. and autopsy of deceased Ashish Singh s/o Raj Kishore Singh was done on 05.06.1991 at 5.45 p.m. by P.W.-2, who had found two incised wounds 4 c.m. x 5 c.m. on the top of head and 3 c.m. x .59 bone deep in front of head, three injuries as lacerated and 4, 5, 6 and 7 are abrasions on the dead body of Ashish Singh s/o Raj Kishore Singh. Dr.M.C.Mittal had found one incised injury on the front forehead and one lacerated wound 4 x 5 c.m. bone deep on the right side of the head. The doctor had opined that the injury was caused by sharp edged weapon, which was sufficient for causing death in ordinary course of nature.
(16) S.I. Nand Kishore P.W.-3 who had proved Chick FIR corroborated that the First Information Report was registered in his presence. P.W.-3 had proved that he reached the spot, prepared inquest report, sent the dead body for postmortem in supervision of chowkidar and constables with all documents necessary. After arrest of three appellants Awadhesh Singh, Chandrashekhar Singh and Sukhbir Singh, all sons of Ramadhar Singh and on their pointing out blood stained axe (Khulari) and two lathis had been recovered from the house of the accused persons. Accused- appellants Naresh Singh, Kuber Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh & Sukhbir Singh examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have denied the allegations made over them.
(17) We have heard learned counsels for the appellants and perused the entire record.
(18) Learned counsels for the appellants have assailed the judgment on various grounds mainly that motive is not genuine and strong and FIR is ante-dated. No witness or public has been examined. It has also been assailed on the ground that there is no source of sufficient light in which the accused-appellants could be recognized and further they have vehemently argued that witness Devendra Singh has not been produced/examined. They also assailed that joint pointing out of the three accused, out of five accused for recovery of blood stained one axe and two bamboo lathis has not properly explained. Further no recovery from other two appellants had been made. Recovery from the appellant Kuber Singh and presence of P.W.-1 are doubtful. The appellants also raised the recovery not being in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(19) Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced below:-
"27. How much of information received from accused may be proved- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
(20) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the procedure prescribed under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act had not been properly followed by prosecution in the alleged recovery of axe and lathis. The said recovery is doubtful. They argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to recovery of kulhari and lathi on the pointing out of the three accused, is not acceptable under the law because the said recovery was made on the joint pointing of several accused persons.
(21) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Puttu vs. Emperor reported in A.I.R (32) 1945 Oudh 235, wherein the Apex Court has considered Section 27 in a different perspective which is not applicable in this case. The decision of Puttu (supra) was dissented from the Allahabad High Court in Nathu vs. State, 1958 All 467 relying on Naresh Chandra vs. Emperor, AIR 1942 Cal 593 and State of M.P. vs. Chhotelal Mohanlal, AIR 1951 Nag 71 and it was observed therein:- "It is easily conceivable that two or more persons simultaneously or jointly furnish an information and, as a result of that information, a common discovery is made; such a case will, if either of the conditions is satisfied be covered by the section. Each case will, however, have to be judged on its own facts, but the underlying principle seems to be that the information should be such as cannot be said to be already in the possession of the police, that the discovery is made in consequence of that information, and further that the discovery is not rediscovery of something already discovered."
(22) The appellants' counsel has also placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment reported in Abdul Razak and others vs. State of Karnataka represented by Station Officer, Hutti Police Station, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 282. The facts of the case has no relevance with present facts of the case.
(23) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is a case of double murder in which a man aged about 41 years and a minor boy aged about 12 to 13 years had been killed and for such a killing, there should have been a very strong reason. Without a very strong reason and motive, the accused persons could not have admitted to such heinous crime. Further he argued that no motive has been shown which could give indication that accused persons would kill two persons. They have argued that only a minor incident of marpeet, which occurred about two months before the alleged killing, said to be a motive, is not acceptable as sufficient motive for killing two persons. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that only one witness of facts has been examined and thus it is a case of single testimony and according to him that too was that of an interested witness. On the other hand, he tried to show that others had motive to kill. He further elaborated his argument that one Chotey's only son was killed in which deceased Raj Kishore Singh was made an accused and it could be possible that Chotey's kith and kins might have killed Raj Kishote Singh and his son Ashish Singh, so as to make the family of the present informant/P.W.1 without any male lineal descendant and the P.W.-1 falsely implicated the present accused persons.
(24) Learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the medical evidence is different from and in contrast with the ocular evidence. The broad intention to the incised wounds shown on the person of the deceased and the alleged weapons assigned to the accused was an effort to show that the injuries were caused by axe (Kulhari) whereas the nature of injuries, as found in the postmortem reports was indicative of the fact that same were caused by sharp edged weapons which could not be Kulhari. The margins were found clean cut and, according to him, that too was an indication of the fact that some sharp cutting weapon like Pharsa might have been used for causing death and not Kulhari, as alleged by the prosecution.
(25) The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the postmortem reports of the deceased are not connecting with the time of the incident. The doctor conducting postmortem had found the stomach and intestine of the deceased to be empty when the incident was stated to be of late evening and the deceased persons were returning from the market.
(26) He further argued that the informant and others had stated that the dead bodies were kept on the cot whereas the Investigating Officer says that they were kept on the ground. On this point, the statement of the accused-appellants was that P.W.-1 was telling a lie. The accused-appellants lastly argued that there was a delay in lodging of the FIR. They argued that incident had occurred on 03.06.1991 at 7.00 p.m. but FIR had been lodged on 04.06.1991 at 6.45 a.m. The informant got the time to prepare a false story and afterthought they lodged the FIR and they also argued that the time of death does not coincide with the view of the doctor concerned on the said point.
(27) Considering the said arguments, it may be noted that motive cannot be ascertained every time for committing crimes. If motive is not in the F.I.R., version of F.I.R, a report of crime cannot be discarded. The incident giving rise to motive may be very minor, but as stated by the appellant's counsel the gravity of motive differs from man to man. A motive may be a minor issue but the same could be sufficient for the accused persons. Thus, in either way the aforesaid position does not exculpate the accused-persons and the question of their culpability can be seen only in the light of the evidence and all other accompanying circumstances as appearing in the case. We are of the considered view that the motive is not very essential in a case of direct evidence i.e. as Hon'ble Apex Court has held in various laws on this point. But in this case in evidence as stated by P.W.-1 it has come up that scuffle had ensued between the parties two months before the occurrence, in which FIR from both the sides were lodged. It is settled that motive is in the minds of the accused persons and cannot be ascertained by the Court. Presence or absence of motive in a case of direct evidence is not of much relevance if the case of the prosecution is proved from other relevant circumstances.
(28) P.W.-1 in his evidence has stated that only 7-8 years back his grandson (son of Raj Kishore) had died of drowning and he did not implicate the accused whereas he had an opportunity to falsely implicate the present accused persons, without waiting for his son and another grand-son to die. He had no enmity with Chhotey Lal after they won in all criminal cases in the murder of his son occurred in the year 1971.
(29) Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that width of the incised-wound was found 0.5 c.m. and 1.00 c.m. In that light he argued that the same could not be caused by a ''Kulhari' (axe). The depth of the injuries has been found roughly 3.00 to 4.00 c.ms. and if a ''Kulhari' gets pierced into head and goes only upto 4.00 c.m. in depth, one cannot expect more wider injuries than 0.5 c.m. and 1.00 c.m.
(30) Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that stomach of the deceased persons was empty and it was not believable that the stomach and intestine of both the deceased-persons could be empty when they were coming back from the market. In the statement of P.W.-1, he has categorically stated that they did not take any food, not eaten anything during their entire journey and purchasing etc. It has also come in the evidence that they had simply taken tea and water. At 7.00 p.m., when the murder was allegedly done, one cannot expect tea and water to remain in the stomach and intestine of the deceased-persons and if the doctor found these two organs empty, it was a natural and is perfectly in consonance with the ocular version.
(31) It was further raised by the appellant's counsel that only one person's testimony cannot be relied and other witnesses named in the FIR were not produced by the prosecution. We are of the opinion that the fact that another eye-witness was not produced, will not affect the case of the prosecution if the evidentiary value of the testimony of P.W.-1, sole eye witness is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. It is not obligatory that the prosecution produces all witnesses examined during the course of investigation or stated to be present on the spot. It is the choice of the prosecution to produce best evidence in its favour, i.e. it can chose to examine only those witnesses in the witness box who prove the story. The real test is that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is credit worthy and is true narration of the case. Moreover, it has come in the evidence that Devendra Singh, another eye witness had been won-over by the accused and that is why he was not produced.
(32) In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sadhu Ram and another vs. State of Rajasthan; 2003 (46) ACC 993 (SC), there is no legal impediment in recording a conviction on evidence of a single witness. The rule of prudence, however, demands that such single testimony should be free from blemish and should also be adequate one. If such testimony is also corroborated by the medical evidence, prompt F.I.R., and other circumstances, then it can be safely acted upon for recording a conviction.
(33) The testimony of P.W.-1 is not doubtful as P.W.-1 Shiv Mohan Singh in his deposition stated that when they were returning from Baberu market after purchasing and when bullock cart reached in the area of Kauhara about four farlang from abadi area, accused Kuber and Naresh with Kulahri, Sukhbir, Chandrashekhar and Awdhesh with lathi who were hidden behind the Babool tree, suddenly came out from behind the Babool tree and shouted to kill the enemies. They freed the bullocks from the cart and started beating Raj Kishore and Ashish. Deponent and Devendra was coming behind the bullock card. P.W.-1 cried to save his child and grandson, accused killed Raj Kishore and Ashish and threw their bodies on the road. P.W.-1 was present on the spot, his presence at the scene of occurrence is not doubtful. His testimony could not be brushed aside only on account of being solitary witness. Minor contradictions here and there as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants do not decide the fate of a murder case because human faculties of ''sight', ''recollection' and ''expression' are ''imperfect', therefore, natural contradictions are bound to occur.
(34) The appellants' counsel compared the facts narrated by P.W.-1 with the evidence of Investigating officer and pointed out a minor difference in the statement of P.W.-1, the informant and the Investigating Officer regarding the dead bodies being kept on the ''Cot' as stated by P.W.-1, whereas, the Investigating Officer stated that the bodies were found by him on the ground but it was corrected after recollecting the fact that bodies were found on the ''Cot'. Such minor discrepancies could not be a reason to disregard the testimony of the witnesses.
(35) The appellants' counsel raised a point that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. We do not agree with the same, as delay has been already explained by P.W.-1 Shiv Mohan Singh informant who stated in witness that after his son and grand son were killed, he was badly terrified and had no courage to go to the Police Station in the night to lodge the F.I.R. The next date somehow he gathered courage and went to the Police Station in the early morning to lodge the F.I.R.
(36) On the point raised by appellants' counsel regarding site-plan that the dead body of Raj Kishore Singh was shown behind the bullock-cart, while the Investigating Officer found the same in front of the bullock-cart. This objection raised by the appellant's counsel is not correct as it has come up in the evidence that the bullock-cart was shifted from the place of occurrence when he visited the spot. A trail of blood from place 'A' to 'C' has been shown in the site plan and the dead body of Raj Kishore Singh was found at place 'C' and his son at place 'B', whereas bullock cart was shown at place 'A'. Blood was found scattered on the bullock cart and blood-stained pieces were seized and exhibited as 'Ka-24'. On chemical examination, human blood was found on the said seized articles. The prosecution version of the manner in which murder was committed is, thus, proved from the occular version of P.W.-1, corroborated by other relevant material on record.
(37) The appellants' counsel placed Section 27 of the Evidence Act to create a doubt regarding recovery of the axe and lathis.
(38) Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay @ Kaka vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in U.P. Criminal Rules 2007 (323) has held that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, same guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.
(39) As discussed above, the deceased had sustained lacerated wounds and incised wounds which is proved from the postmortem report and having been caused by sharp edged weapon and lathi. P.W.-1 categorically stated that Kuber and Naresh had Kulhari/axe, Sukhbir, Chandrashekhar and Awadhesh had lathis. They being members of the unlawful assembly formed by all the accused appellants, are equally liable for the offences committed by any members of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object in which double murder was committed. They played important role as they were carrying axe/kulhari and lathi and killed Raj Kishore and Ashish. The conviction of accused under sections 147, 148, 149, therefore, is just and proper. The deceased Raj Kishore received incised wound 4 c.m. x .5 c.m. on the top of the head, 11 c.m. over left eye and incised wound 3 c.m. x 5 cm. bone deep on the front of head, 6 cm. left eye, lacerated wound 1 cm., 5 cm.. bone deep. Lacerated wound of 1 c.m. X 5 c.m. and bone deep. Deceased Ashish received injury incised wound 4 c.m., 1 c.m. on the front of the forehead and lacerated would 4 x 1.5 c.m. bone deep on the right side of above eyes, multiple fractured. Lacerated wound 1.5 c.m.x .5 c.m.colour deep. These injuries can be said to have been caused by the weapon carried by the accused persons.
(40) Further, the conviction under Sections 147, 148 & 149 I.P.C. is just and proper as all the ingredients of section 149 that (i) the offence must be committed by any member of unlawful assembly consisting of five or more members, (ii) It must be shown that the incriminating act wa* s done to accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly. (iii) It must be within the knowledge of other members that the offence is likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object are satisfied. In the instant case, the accused persons with intention to kill attacked on vital part of the deceased and caused grievous injuries over his head. The incident having eye witness account and injury on vital part with motive coming from the statements of P.W.-1 Shiv Mohan Singh, P.W.-2 Dr. M.C.Mittal and P.W.-3 Nand Kishore, Investigating Officer are corroborating each other. The eye witness account having clinching evidence and natural narration of the occurrence cannot be discarded or brushed aside. We do not find any material fact from the evidence of the case available on the record to cause interference in the decision of the court below.
(41) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of the matters, we find no reason to disagree with the view taken by the court below. There is ample direct evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime. The findings of the trial court are found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(42) Resultantly, this appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. The judgment and order passed by court below is affirmed.
(43) Appellants Kuber Singh, Naresh Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh & Sukhbir Singh, are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They shall surrender forthwith before the court concerned, be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve their sentence.
(44) Certify this judgment to the court below immediately for compliance.
(45) The compliance be submitted through the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
(DEEPAK VERMA,J.) (SUNITA AGARWAL J.)
Order Date :- February 24, 2020
SKD