The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence supporting the charges and the consideration of the duration of legal proceedings and time spent in jail in determining the sentence.

Gopal Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel for the State.

2. Murli Chaudhary, Nandan Chaudhary, Naiya @ Naiya Chaudhary, Ram Singhasan Chaudhary @ Singhashan Chaudhary, Ram Keshar Chaudhary @ Keshwar Chaudhary and Ram Nath Chaudhary, Appellants Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 and 7 have been convicted for offence under Sections 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for three years and Musafir Chaudhary, Appellant No. 5 has been convicted for offence under Section 307 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant Ram Nath Chaudhary has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 324 I.P.C., Appellant Murli Chaudhary, Nandan Chaudhary, Naiya Chaudhary and Singhasan Chaudhary have further been convicted for offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. The prosecution case as alleged in the Fardbeyan that Murli Chaudhary, Nandan Chaudhary and Naiya Chaudhary were found uprooting gram crops from the land of the informant Surendra Kumar Singh. His grand father Ramdeo Chaudhary saw the accused persons uprooting gram crops from his land, then he protested. When Surendra Kumar Singh and Ramdeo Chaudhary went at the house of the aforesaid accused persons to lodge a protest then accused persons became furious and started abused and exchange of hot words then accused persons came with lathi bhala and gun. The accused Kailash chaudhary is alleged to have caught Ramdeo Chaudhary and accused Singhashan Chaudhary was alleged to have caught informant Surendra Kumar Singh. Accused Ramnath Chaudhary is said to have inflicted a bhala blow causing bhala injury on the palm of his right hand in between index and thumb finger. The informant also sustained bhala injury on his left hand. It is further alleged that accused Musafir Chaudharyh is said to have fired twice from his country made pistol aiming at the informant Surendra Kumar Singh and his grand father Ramdeo Chaudhary, but they escaped fire arm injury.

4. On the Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged. After investigation, charge sheet submitted. Cognizance taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the charge was framed.

5. The defence of the accused persons that Saraj Nandan Chaudhary, Ghara Chaudhary came near the Mahua tree and started firing from their guns. Dr. Kailash Chaudhary was sitting on his Dalan, sustained gun shot injury on his person. Accused Rajendra Chaudhary also sustained injuries on his person and the motive of the aforesaid occurrence is said to be that a quarrel had taken place among the kids on mud throwing on the Holi festival.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, order of conviction and sentence recorded.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants however, contends that there is allegation that accused persons catch hold of Surendra Kumar Singh and his grand father Ramdeo Chaudhary and then inflicted bhala and lathi and they have also fired. The injury by bhala and other weapons found by the Doctor are simple and no fire arm injury found on the persons of Surendra Kumar Singh and Ramdeo Chaudhary and hence allegation of firing has not been substantiated. However, witnesses have developed the prosecution case during trial and deposed that firing by one accused persons which hit another accused or to the prosecution side which is not a case either in the Fardbeyan or before the I.O. and contradiction to that effect has been recorded by drawing attention by taking contradiction and hence prosecution develop the story from time to time hence the prosecution case required to be rejected. It has further been contended that allegation even if taken to be proved, none of the injury either singly or even taken together, cumulativ