Point of law: Sometimes even falsehood is given an adroit appearance of truth, so that truth disappears and falsehood comes on the surface.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.03.1986 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 1982, convicting the appellants Ram Autar, Ram Pal, Panna Lal and Ram Chandra alias Bishun Chand under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. It be noted that the appeal of appellant no.2 (Ram Pal), consequent to his death, was abated vide order dated 30.09.2019.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

2. The prosecution case in brief, as per the allegations in the written report (FIR) (Ex. Ka-1), lodged by the Babu Nandan (PW-1), brother of the deceased Ram Harakh, is that the accused Ram Autar alias Bishun Dayal, Ram Pal, Panna Lal and Ram Chandra, who are residents of informant’s village, are in litigation with the informant and, therefore, inimically disposed. On account of this enmity, two days prior to the incident i.e. 03.01.1980 informant’s brother Ram Harakh (the deceased) was assaulted with a Gandasi resulting in an injury on his left arm which had to be stitched and of which a case was registered at Jafarabad. After narrating the above background, it is alleged that on 05.01.1980 when Ram Harakh (the deceased) was with his son Banwari @ Gungey and had gone to fetch medicine from Sadar Hospital, Jaunpur, at about 9.30 a.m., near Line Bazar, as soon as they reached in front of the shop of a fodder seller, from a truck (i.e. No. U.S.F.-904), which was loaded with fodder, the accused-apellants and the truck cleaner, who can be recognised if produced, alighted and attacked the deceased and his son (nephew of the informant), with iron rod and lathi. As a result of that assault, both of them received injuries. At the spot, informant’s brother Raja Ram (P.W.2) and Rajendra (P.W.3), who were returning after selling milk, were present and they witnessed the incident. It is alleged that the deceased and his son were taken to the Sadar Hospital, Jaunpur by Raja Ram where he was declared dead whereas his son (Banwari @ Gungey) was admitted in the hospital after medical examination. The written report, scribed by Ram Adhar (not examined), was registered as an FIR at 11.00 a.m. on 05.01.1980 at Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, giving rise to Case Crime No. 11/1980 of which Chik Report (Ex. Ka-5) and G.D. Entry (Ex. Ka-6) was made by Trilokinath Singh (not examined), whose signatures were proved by PW-6. Inquest was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Jaunpur by about 3.30 p.m. of which inquest report (Ex. Ka-9) was prepared. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet (Ex Ka 14) was submitted against four accused, namely, the appellants herein. After taking cognisance on the charge-sheet, the matter was committed to the court of session. On 13.09.1982, all the four accused i.e. accused appellants were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and 323/34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, their testimony, in brief, is as follows:-

4. PW-1-Babu Nandan (the informant). He proved the enmity between the informant and the accused party and claimed that he received information about the incident when he was near Line Bazar crossing. Upon receipt of the information, he had arrived at the spot. He noticed blood on the spot and there, he came to know that people have taken Ram Harakh (the deceased) to the hospital. After receiving the said information, he and Bhaiya Lal (not examined) reached the hospital. At the hospital Buddhoo (not examined), Raja Ram (PW-2) and Rajendra (PW-3) were there. Raja Ram (PW-2) had requested him to lodge the report. He stated that on the information received from Raja Ram he got the report scribed by Ram Adhar (not examined) at the Hospital and, thereafter, he lodged the report. He proved the written