Point of law: where the informant after the occurrence did not go to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. but went to an Advocate at a distance of 15 kms. from the place of occurrence, for consultation and the copy of F.I.R. was not sent to the concerned Magistrate, held the F.I.R. was anti-timed and the prosecution story was not reliable.

JUDGMENT :

VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal, under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2003, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2001, arising out of Case Crime No. 123 of 1999, under Sections 307/504/506/435 and 427 I.P.C. P.S. Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the appellants-Satya Narain, Amarjeet, Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as appellants) have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. for four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/- each and for offence under Section 435 read with 34 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each. It has been further directed that the appellants will have to undergo six months imprisonment for both the offences. All the sentences of the appellants will run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant (Ram Milan) (PW-1) and the appellants are resident of Village-Shapur Kurmaul, Police Station-Kotwali Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar and civil suits pertaining to agricultural land i.e. Gata Nos. 1095, 1096, 1047, 1146, 1230, 1065, were pending between them to which both parties were claiming as Bhumidhar with transferable rights along with possession. On 05.05.1999, Ram Milan (PW-1) was harvesting his wheat crops since 6:00 a.m. along with his nephew-Devdhar, uncle-Ramashray and cousin- Ramajore. Meanwhile, the appellants-Satya Narain, Ashok Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Amarjeet came there at about 12:30 a.m. The appellants-Satya Narain and Amarjeet were carrying bombs, the appellant-Ashok Kumar was carrying a katta (country-made pistol) whereas the appellant-Pawan Kumar was carrying lathi. Upon exhortation of the appellant-Pawan Kumar, all the appellants hurled abuses and threatened to kill Ram Milan (PW-1) and his family members who were harvesting the crops; the appellants-Satya Narain and Amarjeet threw the bomb with intention to kill them and the appellant-Ashok Kumar fired with Katta (country-made pistol). Hearing the explosion of bomb, firing of Katta (country-made pistol) and alarm raised by the informant of his family members, Ram Daur (PW-2), Ram Charitra (PW-3) and Ramajore and so many co-villagers came there and saw the occurrence. The appellants fled away from the place of occurrence by setting ablaze the field of wheat and sugarcane crops. A typed written information (Ext-Ka-1) was lodged by the informant (Ram Milan) (PW-1) at Police Station-Tanda at about 4:35 p.m. which was entered into General Diary (Ext-Ka-3) by S.I. Sheetla Prasad Upadhyaya (PW-4), the then Head Constable, who registered Chik F.I.R. (Ext-Ka-2), as Case Crime No. 123/99 under Sections 307, 435, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. against the appellants.

3. Investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Bhuvneshwar Prasad (not examined), who visited the place of occurrence, collected sample of exploded bomb and ashes, prepared its recovery memo (Ext-Ka-4 and Ext-Ka-5), prepared site plan (Ext-Ka-6) and after conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet (Ext-Ka-7) against the appellants, for offence under Sections 307, 435, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, who took the cognizance of the offence and since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after providing the copy of relevant police papers as required under Section 207 of the Code, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Faizabad for trial.

4. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 307 read with 34, 504, 506 and 435 I.P.C. against the appellants to which they denied and claimed for trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Ram Milan (PW-1), Ram Daur (PW-2), Ram Charitra (PW-3), S.I. Sheetla Prasad Upadhyaya (PW-4) wherein PW-1 to PW-3 are witnesses of facts and P.W.4 is