Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 339 (ALL)

DHARAM SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2019-02-08

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, RAMESH SINHA

body2019
JUDGMENT RAMESH SINHA, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 28.04.1983 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1982 convicting and sentencing the appellants for life imprisonment for offence under section 302/34 I.P.C. and for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 201 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by the informant Dwarika Prasad Agnihotri against the three appellants on 25.09.1978 at 09.30 a.m. with the allegation that in the night of 24/25 September, 1978 at about 01.30 a.m. in village Barsara, PS. Thariaon, District Fatehpur, the appellants committed murder of Ram Gopal @ Chela and Punni @ Ram Kumar in the village by firing shots on them. Accused Dharam Singh, Suraj Bali and Kamta were armed with country made pistol, axe and tamancha respectively and one unknown person who was not known to the informant was armed with lathi. Subsequently, the accused burned the body of Punni @ Ram Kumar who was sleeping on a cot. The eye witness who have seen the occurrence namely Ram Kishore @ Bade son of Shiv Nand, Bhagauti Prasad son of Shiv Bodhan, Chhedi Lal son of Gopal Chand Yadav, Jhuri son of Babu and Ram Saroop who reached the place of occurrence on the alarm raised and saw the four accused assaulting the two deceased and further threatened the witnesses and the informant that if they interfered then they would be also dealt in the same way and the witnesses and the informant have seen the incident in the light of torch and lantern and also in the light of moon and identified the three appellants and one unknown person whose name was not known to the informant. It was further stated by the informant that the appellants have murdered the two deceased because of some land dispute and because of fear in the night, he did not go to the police station to lodge the FIR. The informant left the dead body of the two deceased who were his maternal uncles in the supervision of Bhagwati Prasad who belonged to his village and had gone to the police station to lodge an FIR. The informant got the FIR written and put his thumb impression and submitted the same to police station Thariaon, District Fatehpur. The informant left the dead body of the two deceased who were his maternal uncles in the supervision of Bhagwati Prasad who belonged to his village and had gone to the police station to lodge an FIR. The informant got the FIR written and put his thumb impression and submitted the same to police station Thariaon, District Fatehpur. In pursuance of report lodged by the informant Dwarika Prasad, the FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 171 of 1978 under section 302 IPC at 09.30 a.m. on 25.09.1978. After registration of the FIR, police reached the place of occurrence. The investigation of the case was taken over by Station Officer Sri Sadanand Rai who along with SI S.B. Singh had gone to the place of occurrence and SI Shiv Charan Singh who was already there along with police force was conducting the investigation. The Station Officer himself took up the investigation and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-26. He interrogated the witnesses Ram Kumar, Bhagwati Prasad, Chhote Lal and others and made search of the accused persons. On 25.09.1978, he again went in search of the accused but they could not be arrested. HC Radhey Shyam Tripathi, PW5 prepared the check reports and GD report, Ex. Ka-4 and Ka-5 and on the basis of written FIR which was entrusted to him by the informant Dwarika Prasad. After concluding the investigating, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka-27 against the accused persons on 24.11.1978. Sub-Inspector S.B. Singh prepared the inquest reports, challan nash and photos of the dead body and letters to RI and CMO Ex. Ka-13 to Ka-18 and other police papers Ex. Ka-19 to Ka-25 and entrusted the dead body of the deceased in a sealed condition to the constable for being sent for postmortem examination. He also recovered empty cartridges from the spot and collected blood stained and plain earth in separate containers and also samples of ashes as well as pieces of burnt strings of cot and prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka-17 and Ka-11 and sealed the same in separate containers in bundles. 3. Dr. Som Sharma, PW4 conducted the postmortem examination on dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela on 26.09.1978 at about 03.30 p.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person: 1. Ka-17 and Ka-11 and sealed the same in separate containers in bundles. 3. Dr. Som Sharma, PW4 conducted the postmortem examination on dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela on 26.09.1978 at about 03.30 p.m. and found the following ante mortem injuries on his person: 1. Incised wound 3" x 1" x-bone deep on the left temple 1/2" from outer end of eyebrow. Margins clean cut. Bone also clean cut. it is directed vertically. 2. Incised wound 3" x 1" x muscle deep and vessels deep on the left side neck in upper 1/2". Margins clean cut. 3. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x bone deep on the left side neck 1/2" behind injury no.2. Lower half of left ear also cut through and through. Margins clean cut. 4. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the left side head 4" above the ear. Margins clean cut. Bone also clean cut. 5. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the middle of the head 1" away from injury no.4. Margins clean cut. Bone also clean cut. 6. Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the right side head 4 and 1/2" above the right year. Margins clean cut. Bone also clean cut. 7. Incised wound 1.1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on the right side forehead 2" above the eyebrow. Bone clean cut. Margins of the cord also clean cut. It is placed horizontally. 8. Six gun shot wounds of entry each 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the left side chest in axillary place in lower 1/3" in an area of 3" x 2.1/2". Margins inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 9. One gun shot wound of exit 1/2" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the left side chest 1.1/2" from midline and 3" above and inner to left nipple. Margins everted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 10. One gun shot wound of entry 1/8" x 1/8" x chest wall deep on the left side chest 1" away from injury no.9 towards the midline. Margins inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 11. Multiple gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/8" x 1/8" x abdominal wall deep in an area of 5" x 4" on the right side abdomen just near the mid line, 3" above and right to umbilicus. Margins inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 12. Margins inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 11. Multiple gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/8" x 1/8" x abdominal wall deep in an area of 5" x 4" on the right side abdomen just near the mid line, 3" above and right to umbilicus. Margins inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 12. Abrasion 1/2" x 2/10" with scab found on the front of left side chest 1.1/2"above and left to nipple. 13. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/10" x scab found on the left side chest 1/2" below injury no. 12. 14. Multiple gun shot wounds of entrance each 1/8" x 1/8" x muscle and bone deep on the dorsum of left four fingers except thumb. Margins inverted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 15. One gun shot wound of exit 1/8" x 1/8" x whole hand deep on the palm aspect of base of left middle finger. Margins everted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 16. One gun shot wound of exit 1/8" x 1/8" x whole hand deep on the palm aspect of base of the web between the left index finger and thumb. Margins everted and lacerated. No bleeding present. 4. In the internal examination, he found the bones of the head cut on places. The membranes were found lacerated. Brain was cut on left side of the ear. The base of the head was cut on left side of the ear. Externum was fractured. The membranes of the lungs were found lacerated and cut. Both the lungs were full of blood. Pericardium was lacerated. Heart was found empty. In the chest cavity, one pound blood was present. Stomach was found empty and full of gases. Small intestine was empty and full of gases whereas large intestines were full of faecal matter. Pancreas was found empty. Gall bladder was found half full. He also recovered 29 small sized and 4 large sized gun shots from the corpse of the deceased and sealed the same in a bundle and sent them to S.P. Fatehpur for necessary action through proper channel. 5. On the same day, PW4 Dr. Som Sharma also conducted postmortem on the dead body of Punni @ Ram Kumar at 03.30 p.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person: 1. First and second degree burn present throughout the whole body except right lower extremity. Skin was blackened and signing of hair present. 5. On the same day, PW4 Dr. Som Sharma also conducted postmortem on the dead body of Punni @ Ram Kumar at 03.30 p.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person: 1. First and second degree burn present throughout the whole body except right lower extremity. Skin was blackened and signing of hair present. Vesicles contained serous fluids with red base. 2. Gun shot wound of entrance 1" x 1" x skull cavity deep on the middle of head, circular in shape. Margins inverted and lacerated. Bleeding of the margins of mid present. Brain matter is exuding out of the wound of entrance. 6. On internal examination, he found the bones of head fractured at places. Membranes lacerated and congested. Brain was congested and lacerated and base was fractured. Stomach was empty and full of gases. Small intestines was found empty and full of gases whereas large intestines were full of faecal matters. Bladder was found half lacerated. Pancreas was empty. He also recovered five large sized gun shots and wadding pieces recovered from the skull cavity of deceased Punni and sealed the same in a cloth and sent the same to the S.P. Fatehpur through proper channel. He has proved the postmortem reports Ex. Ka.2 and Ka.3 and in his opinion, the death of these persons was possible in the night of 24/25 September, 1978 at about 01.30 a.m. resulted by ante-mortem injuries. 7. On receipt of the chargesheet, C.J.M., Fatehpur committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 05.04.1982 and on 08.11.1982, the trial court framed charges against the accused under sections 302/34 and 201 IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dwarika Prasad, PW2 Bhagauti Prasad, PW3 Ram Kishore, PW4 Dr. Som Sharma, PW5 HC Radhey Shyam Tripathi, PW6 Chhedi Lal and PW7 SI Sadananad Rai. 9. The accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to malice. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 10. Pw1, Dwarika Prasad who is the informant of the case had deposed that he was staying with the two deceased who were his maternal uncles for the last fifteen days before the occurrence. He stated that his maternal uncles had agricultural land and the accused wanted to grab their landed property. 10. Pw1, Dwarika Prasad who is the informant of the case had deposed that he was staying with the two deceased who were his maternal uncles for the last fifteen days before the occurrence. He stated that his maternal uncles had agricultural land and the accused wanted to grab their landed property. Hence, in the night between 24-25, September, 1978 at about 01.30 a.m. when he was sleeping with his maternal uncles namely Ram Gopal @ Chela in their hut (chhappar) and a lantern (dhibri) was burning over there. There was moon light on that night and his second uncle was sleeping inside the house when the appellants along with one unknown person armed with pistols, axe and lathi appeared there and accused Dharam Singh fired a shot from his country made pistol at his maternal uncle Ram Gopal which hit him and when he tried to get up, the other unknown person who was armed with lathi, stopped him. Appellant Kamta fired a pistol shot at him and then accused Suraj Bali started assaulting him with his axe. The witness raised alarm and ran towards the village and on hearing his alarm and shrieks, witnesses Ram Kishore @ Bade, Bhagwati Din, Bhagwati Prasad, Chhote Lal, Jhoori, Ram Swarup and several others rushed there flashing their torches and raising hue and cry. The appellants, subsequently, went inside the veranda (usara) and set ablaze the cot of Punni @ Ram Kumar. The witnesses kept on raising hue and cry but the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences in case they tried to interfere and after committing the murder, all the three accused persons left the place of occurrence. They were identified by the witnesses in the moon light as well as with the help of their torches and lanterns but due to night and fear of the accused, they could not lodge the FIR at the police station and the same was lodged only in the morning when he went to the police station and gave a written report. It has been further stated by him that the witnesses were not ready to give evidence against the appellants due to their fear and they were hiding themselves. It has been further stated by him that the witnesses were not ready to give evidence against the appellants due to their fear and they were hiding themselves. Thus, he has supported the prosecution case as has been set up in the FIR but during his cross examination, he tried to resile from his earlier statement by deposing that he was not present at the scene of occurrence nor he has seen the assailants but it was only in the morning that he was called by the police at Agnohotri ka Purwa and he reported the matter as dictated by the police at about 12.00 a.m. Thus, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 11. Pw2 Bhagauti Prasad and PW3 Ram Kishore deposed that all the three appellants who were armed with their respective weapons have assaulted Ram Gopal @ Chela and they burnt the second deceased namely Punni @ Ram Kumar by burning the cot in which he was sleeping who also suffered burn injuries as well as gun shot injuries on his person and when the said witnesses along with informant tried to intervene in the matter, they were threatened by the appellants for their lives. The incident was witnessed by them in the light of their torches and lanterns and also in moon light. 12. From their evidence, it is also clear that all the three appellants are real brothers and the two deceased had no issue and they possessed 22-23 bighas of land. The accused Suraj Bali wanted to grab the land of the deceased on the basis of a fictitious will and he was waiting for a day when both the brothers could be eliminated so that he may be able to get the property on the basis of the said fictitious 'will'. Hence, they planned the murder of the two deceased and killed them on the date of occurrence in the midnight and on hearing the hue and cry of the complainant from the place of occurrence, the said two witnesses rushed there with their torches and lathis accompanied by other witnesses namely Chhote Lal, Ram Swarup and Jhuri and others on their way and all of them witnessed the incident. On reaching there, the deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela was seen murdered by accused with their fire arms, axe and lathi at his chaupal. On reaching there, the deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela was seen murdered by accused with their fire arms, axe and lathi at his chaupal. Later on, all of them had gone inside the house and murdered Ram Kumar @ Punni. After the incident, the accused left the place fleeing towards South. After the accused left, the witnesses went near the victim and found them dead and the body of Punni was found burning there. From the cross examination of the two witnesses, it was evident that the two deceased were very much miser and they could not have executed any will in favour of accused Suraj Bali. Hence, it was quite possible that Suraj Bali along with others have been able to obtained some fictitious will in his favour by some impostor. After detailed cross examination of these two witnesses, the defence was not able to elucidate any material which may go to support the defence case and to discard the testimony of these two witnesses. 13. Pw6 Chhedi Lal who is stated to be an attesting witness of the will in question has deposed before the trial Court that three days prior to the occurrence Gulab Singh, father of accused Suraj Bali met in his field and asked him to accompany him to Fatehpur as he has cordial relations with him on which the witness had come with Gulab Singh and Suraj Bali to Fatehpur Tehsil and both of them got a fictitious will prepared there posing themselves to be Ram Gopal@ Chela and Punni and presented the same in the Registration Office and obtained his signatures as an attesting witness thereon. The said witness was also threatened by them if he tried to disclose the said fact in the village. He gave the statement to this effect to the Investigating Officer but in his cross examination, he filed an affidavit in support of both the parties in mutation case before the Tehsil authority. 14. Pw4 Dr. Som Sharma had deposed before the trial Court that he was posted as a Medical Officer in District Hospital, Fatehpur on 26.09.1978. On the said date, at about 03.00 p.m., the dead body of deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela was brought by Constable Govardhan Prasad and Ramesh Babu of police station Thariaon and have identified the same. 14. Pw4 Dr. Som Sharma had deposed before the trial Court that he was posted as a Medical Officer in District Hospital, Fatehpur on 26.09.1978. On the said date, at about 03.00 p.m., the dead body of deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela was brought by Constable Govardhan Prasad and Ramesh Babu of police station Thariaon and have identified the same. At 03.30 p.m., PW4 conducted postmortem on deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela and found antemortem injuries as referred to above and proved the same as Ex. Ka-2 and also conducted the postmortem on the other deceased namely Punni @ Ram Kumar on the same day at about 05.00 p.m. and found the antemortem injuries on his person which have been referred to above and proved the same as Ex. Ka-3 and he has stated before the trial court that death of the two deceased was possible in the night of 24-25 September, 1978 at about 01.30 a.m. and the cause of death was antemortem injuries. 15. Pw5 HC Radhey Shyam Tripathi has stated that he was posted on 25.09.1978 at PS Thariaon and he was conversant with the writing and signature of HC Ram Singh who is no more. He proved Ex. Ka-1, the chik FIR which was stated to have written by Ram Singh and also the GD rapat No. 19 at about 09.30 a.m. dated 25.08.1978 which was registered against the three accused persons and he also produced the original GD report before the trial Court which is Ex. Ka-2 and a carbon copy of the same was available on record which he proved as Ex. Ka-4. He has also proved Ex.Ka 5-6 which were some police papers. 16. Pw7 SI Sadanand Rai has stated that he was posted as Station Officer at PS Thariaon on 25.09.1978 and along with him, SI S.B. Singh was also posted there. On the date of the incident, he had gone to Superintendent of Police and on receiving the information, he reached the place of occurrence and found SI Shiv Baran Singh and other police persons conducting the investigation. On reaching there, PW7 took over the investigation. Thereafter, he made spot inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and proved the same as Ex. On reaching there, PW7 took over the investigation. Thereafter, he made spot inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and proved the same as Ex. Ka-26 and also recorded the statements of the witness and made efforts to arrest the accused on 25.09.1978 and he also recorded the statement of witnesses of will namely Jairam and Chhedi. After completing the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet on 24.11.1978 in the Court and proved the same as Ex. Ka-27. He further deposed that he conducted the postmortem inquest proceedings of the two deceased and prepared other police papers and proved them as Ex. Ka-19 to Ka-25. He also recovered cartridges, plain earth, blood stained earth, ashes and half burnt ropes of the cot of which he prepared the recovery memo and proved the same as Ex. Ka-8 to Ka-11. In the cross examination, he denied that when he reached the place of occurrence on his advise, the FIR was lodged. He further denied the suggestion that he had called the informant Dwarika on the same day from Agnihotri ka Purwa and got the FIR written and got his signatures. He also denied the suggestion that in order to get the case solved, he got false depositions of the witnesses recorded. 17. The trial Court after recording of the evidence led by the prosecution and of the defence, convicted the three appellants for the aforesaid offences and hence, the instant appeal filed by them challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 18. Heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 19. 18. Heard Sri Gopal S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 19. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of PW1 who is the informant of the case and nephew (bhanja) of the two deceased at the place of occurrence is doubtful as he, in his cross examination, has stated that on the date of the incident when his maternal uncles were murdered, he was present in his village Agnihotri ka Purwa from where he was informed and called by a constable who had gone to his village and brought him to village Barsara at about 12.00 noon and the said constable was sent by Sub Inspector from the police station and all the proceedings were done at the police station and he put his thumb impression on several papers without reading the contents of the same and he further denied the fact that he saw the appellants killing his maternal uncles. Learned counsel for the appellants had stated that the said witness though has supported the prosecution in its examination in chief but in his cross examination, he resiled from his statement and was declared hostile as it was stated by him that the earlier statement which was given by him was under the influence of the police and he has also not written the oral report of the incident. 20. So far as the other two witnesses PW2 and PW3 are concerned, it was stated by him that if the credibility of PW1 is discarded by this Court, then the credibility of the other two witnesses who are eye witnesses of the occurrence can also not be relied upon. It was urged that all the appellants are three real brothers and they have been implicated in the present case by the informant only on account of suspicion whose presence at the place of occurrence itself is doubtful. Hence, conviction of the appellants on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is wholly unjustified by the trial court and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 21. Hence, conviction of the appellants on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is wholly unjustified by the trial court and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 21. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that PW1 who is the informant of the case and also the bhanja of the two deceased as per his examination in chief, as well as from the FIR, it is established that he was present at the place of occurrence and has witnessed the incident in which his two maternal uncles were done to death by the three appellants by using fire arm weapons, axe and subsequently the second one was also burnt as his cot was put to fire by the accused. The informant was living with his maternal uncles prior to 15 days of the occurrence as is apparent from the FIR as well as his examination in chief recorded by the trial court. He further submitted that from the evidence of PW1, it is apparent that the witnesses were also under some threat and fear because of the accused/appellants and on account of which PW1 in his cross examination has deposed contrary to what he has stated in his examination in chief and has turned hostile. He further argued that PW2 Bhagauti Prasad and PW3 Ram Kumar who were the neighbors of the deceased and their houses were situated nearby to that of the deceased. On hearing the sound of fire arm shots, they immediately rushed towards the place of occurrence with their torches and lathi and have witnessed the incident and their testimonies fully corroborate with the prosecution case and their presence at the place of occurrence is also wholly established and the trial court believing the evidence PW1, PW2 and PW3 has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. 22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 23. 22. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 23. It transpires from the FIR as well as the from the examination in chief of informant PW1 Dwarika Prasad that he was living with the two deceased who were his maternal uncles in their house prior to 15 days of the incident and on the date of the incident, the informant PW1 has seen the appellants Dharam Raj, Suraj Bali armed with country made pistol and axe respectively who assaulted the deceased Chela @ Ram Gopal who was sleeping on a cot and who tried to run away but the other unknown person who was armed with lathi stopped him from doing so. Accused Suraj Bali caught hold of Ram Gopal @ Chela and accused Dharam Singh fired at him and Suraj Bali assaulted him with an axe. On alarm raised, the other witnesses Ram Kishore @ Bade, Bhagwati Din, Bhagwati Prasad, Chhote Lal, Jhoori, Ram Swarup and several others of his village arrived at the place of occurrence. All the four accused persons subsequently assaulted his other maternal uncle Punni and set ablaze his cot due to which, Punni also received burn injuries on his person and when the informant and the other eye witnesses tried to interfere in the matter, they were threatened by the accused persons. The contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that PW1 in his cross examination has stated that he was called through a constable by the Sub-Inspector of the police station from Agnihotri ka Purwa where he was residing after the incident and got the FIR registered, shows that PW1 was not present at the place of occurrence and the entire prosecution case was cooked up at the instance of the police and PW1 has not seen the incident, is not at all acceptable, in view of the fact that PW1 in the FIR as well as in his examination in chief has fully supported the prosecution case which is corroborated by the medical evidence. From the evidence of Bhagauti Prasad PW2 and Ram Kumar PW3, who are also the eye witnesses of the incident, their presence at the place of occurrence is well established. From the evidence of Bhagauti Prasad PW2 and Ram Kumar PW3, who are also the eye witnesses of the incident, their presence at the place of occurrence is well established. Moreover, two eye witnesses namely PW2 and PW3 are the independent witnesses and neighbours of the two deceased who rushed on the spot on the alarm raised by the informant and on hearing the fire arm shots have also witnessed the incident stating that it was the appellants who have assaulted the deceased with their respective weapons and thereafter set ablaze the cot of the other deceased who also received burn injuries including fire arm injuries on his person. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to argue from the evidence of PW3 that he was having some animosity with appellant Dharam Singh who was an accused with one Gaya Prasad Tiwari and as there was a criminal case going on between PW3 Ram Kumar and Gyan Prasad Tiwari under section 307 IPC but it appears from the evidence of PW3 that there were cross cases from both sides which have resulted into a compromise between the parties hence, the said animosity is hardly of any significance which may prompt PW3 to falsely depose against the appellant Dharam Singh. The ocular testimonies of the two witnesses including PW1 shows that the appellants Dharam Singh and Kamta were armed with fire arm weapons and appellant Suraj Bali was armed with an axe and both the deceased have receive fire arm injuries and Ram Gopal @ Chela also received injuries of axe on his person as incised wound was found and further the other deceased who was sleeping on a cot was also set ablaze by the accused persons received deep burn injuries as well as fire arm injuries. Moreover, the deceased Ram Gopal @ Chela has received as many as nine incised wounds on his person as well as six gun shot injuries which were entry and exit and two abrasions. Hence, he received total 16 number of injuries on his person which goes to show that the two deceased who were brutally murdered as they had no issues and the two accused wanted to grab their agricultural lands. Hence, he received total 16 number of injuries on his person which goes to show that the two deceased who were brutally murdered as they had no issues and the two accused wanted to grab their agricultural lands. The incident was witnessed by the eye witnesses as there was sufficient source of light i.e. of moon light, torches and the lantern which was burning and the accused were known to the complainant. Hence, there was no doubt about their identification by the eye witnesses committing the crime, the trial court after scanning the evidence led by the prosecution has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants had murdered the two deceased and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the three appellants. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants does not suffer from any infirmity which may call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is hereby upheld. 24. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 25. The appellants are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail for serving out the sentence as awarded by the trial court. 26. Let the lower court record along with the present order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.