Point of Law: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

1. Heard Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the appellant-Mohan; Ms. Abida Syed, learned Amicus Curie for unrepresented litigants and Shri N.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. During trial the main assailant, accused-Kedar has breathed last and the other three accused Mohan and two others faced the trial, all the accused have been convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The accused were punished sentenced to life imprisonment with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC and fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and default sentence of 6 months if they did not deposit the amount of fine.

3. The first Information report given on 13.10.1993 is to this effect that brother of the informant namely Ram Sevak son of Rupai was done to death on 12.10.1993 at about 11 p.m. by firing. The brother of the informant was sleeping on his bed with his son and the informant was sleeping in his hut and suddenly on the noise of firing the informant woke up and went in the direction from where the noise had come. The informant and others went in the direction from where the noise had come and saw that Kedar was shooting at the brother of the informant who died and Kedar was shouting that, Mohan run, Ram Sevak is dead, till then Jangi son of Sajjan and Hansraj son of Ram Ratan came there and after hearing the shouting they had tried to catch the accused, but all four accused persons Kedar son of Gauri, Mohan son of Ram Shree, Budhiram son of Vanshraj and Daroga son of Ramdhani ran away from the place of occurrence.

4. According to the informant, accused Mohan and Kedar were carrying country-made pistol (Katta) and Budhiram and Daroga were carrying lathi in their hands. The informant taking some other people with him and the Chowkidar went to house of Kedar and Mohan as they believed that after committing the said act they might have reached home but they were not at home, they went again at the place of occurrence to take the injured to hospital.

5. The informant further informed that before 20 days there was auction in their village in which brother of the informant (namely deceased) and Kedar both had taken part but as the auction money was more, Kedar could not deposit the money or get the bid in his favour because of non depositing of money which bid was allotted to the brother of informant (deceased). From the said day Kedar and Mohan had grudge against the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Mohan had by force encroached on the land known as Kali Mata Temple and so the village people along with deceased had objected to this act of Mohan and, therefore, both the accused Kedar and Mohan in connivance with the other two accused had committed the act causing the death of brother of informant by firing gunshot from close range.

6. The information culminated into FIR and investigation was kept in motion. The statements of witnesses were recorded by investigating officer and after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet which culminated into case being committed to the court of session as it was sessions triable case.

7. The accused on being summoned appeared before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge framed the charge on 27.2.2000. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. During trial Kedar died and trial abated qua him.

8. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses who are as follows:

9. In support of ocular version following documents were filed: