The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of trustworthy and reliable evidence, prompt lodging of the FIR, and the reliability of medical evidence in establishing guilt beyond any doubt.

Shabihul Hasnain, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1981 passed by 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1981 convicting appellant No.1 to 7 under section 147 I.P.C. to one year, under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and under section 324 read with section 149 I.P.C. to two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each in default of payment of fine to six months R.I. and convicted appellant No.8 under section 148 I.P.C. to two years R.I., under section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and under section 324 I.P.C. to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to six months R.I.

2. During pendency of this appeal, appellant no. 1 Ram Achal, appellant No.5 Barsati, appellant No.6 Achhe Lal and appellant No.7 Chhotey Lal died, therefore, their appeal stood abated vide order of this Court dated 19.7.2016.

3. The prosecution story as has been unfolded by the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant P.W. 1 is that there was a litigation of agricultural land between the complainant and accused persons, in which the complainant had succeeded from Consolidation Court, for the reason thereof, the accused persons bore grudge against the complainant. On 25.6.1980 at about 9.00 a.m. Consolidation Lekhpal Shiv Bahadur Lal and Kanungo had gone to the complainant's village for making measurement of the aforesaid agricultural field. The complainant and his brother Shanker, Lekhpal Shiv Bahadur Lal and Kanungo were sitting at the door of Bans Raj Yadava in the aforesaid village of the complainant. There existed a mango grove near the house of Bans Raj Yadava. The complainant and his brother were keeping watch over the aforesaid mango grove. When the accused persons and others learnt that Lekhpal and Kanungo had come to make measurement of the said field, then the accused persons got greatly angry and accused persons namely Ram Achal, Shri Pad, Budh Ram, Tulsi, Barsati, Chotelal, Achhelal armed with Lathis in their hands and the accused Hari Ram armed with spear turned up and started assaulting the complainant with lathis and brother Shanker Lal with the spear.

4. It has been specifically stated in the F.I.R. that accused Hari Ram assaulted Shanker with spear, who fell down and after his falling down all the accused men assaulted him with their respective weapons held by them and thus killed Shanker.

5. On hearing alarm raised by the complainant, the Lekhpal and Kanungo, witnesses Rajit Ram, Paras, Ram Naresh, Bans Raj of the village and others, reached at the place of occurrence and saw the incident. The accused persons having assaulted the complainant and killing his brother Shanker, fled away.

6. On completion of proper investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against all the accused. Charges were framed against accused Ram Achal, Tulsi, Budh Ram, Sri Pal, Barsati, Chhotelal and Achhelal for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 302/324 read with section 149 of the I.P.C. Accused Hari Ram, who was having spear in his hand, was charged u/s 302/324 I.P.C.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Khunkhun, the complainant as P.W. 1, Ram Naresh P.W. 2, Rajit Ram P.W. 3 as eye witnesses of the incident. Dr. L.K. Agnihotgri as P.W. 4 and S.I. B.D. Singh, I.O., P.W. 5 as formal witnesses.

8. The trial Court, after going through the ocular account furnished by the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the circumstances and facts of the case, found that the prosecution has been able to prove guilt of the accused persons beyond any doubt. Therefore, the learned sessions judge passed the order convicting and sentencing them as stated above. Hence this appeal.

9. We have Sri Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State, considered their rival submissions.

10. Firstly we may now advert to the evidence of P.W. 1 Khunkhun, who is alleged