The appellant was found guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and Section 114 IPC, as the injuries were inflicted with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death, and the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of any exceptions to Section 300 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Misra, J.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 11.05.1983 passed by Special Judge, Bulandshahr in S.T. No.57 of 1983 whereby, the appellant no.1 (Jangaliya) has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and the appellant no.2 (Shiv Lal) has been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 114 IPC and both have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. The appeal of appellant no.2 (Shiv Lal) was abated vide order dated 27.11.2021 consequent to his death. This appeal therefore survives qua appellant no.1 (Jangaliya).

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

3. On a written report (Ex. Ka-1), dated 25.10.1982, scribed by Sunder Swarup (PW-2), made by Lakhpat Singh (PW-1), son of Nanua (the deceased), the first information report (FIR) was registered at P.S. Shikarpur, District Bulandshahr as Case Crime No.246 of 1982, at 19.00 hours, on 25.10.1982. The allegation in the FIR is that informant’s chak (a consolidated piece of agricultural holding) adjoins the chak of his uncle (Tau -father’s elder brother) Shiv Lal (appellant no.2). Three to four months before, the informant had installed a tube-well. The channel of its flow passed through the chak of his uncle (Shiv Lal). On 25.10.1982, the informant and the deceased were working in their chak when, at about 5 pm, informant’s uncle (Shiv Lal) and his son (Jangaliya) (the surviving appellant no.1) started dismantling the channel which passed through their field. When the deceased requested them not to dismantle the channel, Shiv Lal abused him and exhorted Jangaliya to beat informant’s father. On this exhortation, Jangaliya administrated ‘Fawra’ (spade) blows hitting the head of the deceased. On witnessing this, the informant, who was at the spot, raised alarm, as a result, Gagan Singh, Kewal Singh came running to the spot and witnessed the incident. By alleging that informant’s father died on the spot and Jangaliya and Shiv Lal escaped with the ‘Fawra’ (spade), the FIR was lodged.

4. The inquest was conducted on 26.10.1982, by about 7.15 am, of which an inquest report (Ex. Ka-4) was prepared by Investigating Officer (Mahendra Singh-PW-3). On 26.10.1982 itself, blood stained earth and plain earth was recovered from the spot of which collection memo (Ex. Ka-11) was prepared. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Chandra Prakash (PW-4) on 26.10.1982 at about 4.30 pm. The autopsy report (Ex. Ka-14) notices:

External Examination

Average built body. Rigor mortis present all over. No Sign of decomposition.

Ante-mortem injuries:-

(i) Incised wound 5½” x 4” into skull cavity deep extending from left parietal region to left lateral neck around left ear.

(ii) Incised wound 1” x ½” into bone deep on left frontal head 2½” above left eyebrow.

(iii) Incised wound 2” x ½” into scalp deep on posterior head in middle.

(iv) Incised wound ½” x ¼” into muscle deep on tip of right index finger on ventral aspect.

Internal Examination

Skull cavity cut underneath injury no.1. All soft tissues under injury no.1 cut through an through upto bone depth in neck. Membranes cut under injury no.1. Left lateral procuses of second to fourth cervical vertebrae cut under injury no.1.

Cause of death :-

Death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury no.1. The estimated time of death about one day back.

5. After investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted, vide charge sheet dated 28.11.1982 (Ex. Ka-13). On which, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of session. By order dated 01.02.1983, Jangaliya (the surviving appellant no.1) was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC whereas Shiv Lal (appellant no.2) was charged for the offence of instigating Jangaliya to commit the murder of Nanua punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. After taking on record the prosecution evidence and the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as above.