Nanku Singh and Others vs State of U.P.

K.S. Rakhra, J.—Appellants Nanku Singh (1), Nankai Singh (2), Asha Singh (3), Arun Singh (4), Iqbal Singh (5), Triloki Singh (6), Chheddu Singh (7) and Mister Singh (8) have preferred this appeal u/s 374, Cr. P.C., against the judgment and order dated 12.11.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No. 540 of 1981 and Appellant No. 9 has preferred this appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 1991 of 1982 convicting each of them u/s 364, I.P.C. and sentencing them to life imprisonment and further u/s 450, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 have further been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment u/s 147, I.P.C. and remaining Appellants have been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 148, I.P.C. The cases have arisen out of Crime No. 98 of 1981 u/s 302/201, I.P.C. Police Station, Husainganj, District Fatehpur.

The place of occurrence is village Narauli Bujurg which is about 8 km. away from the above police station. According to prosecution on 14.6.1981 at about 9 or 10 a.m. Appellants Nos. 1, 5 and 9 armed with guns, Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 armed with lathis and all remaining Appellants armed with country made pistols, went to the house of the first informant Putan Prasad (P.W. 1) and dragged out his brother Munnu Dubey whom they wanted to kill. He was assaulted by these persons and thereafter he was forcibly taken away towards river Ganga which was flowing at a short distance from the house of the informant. There again the victim was assaulted and dropped in river Ganga and his body has never been traced out.

The first information report of this crime was lodged by Putan s/o Ganga Prasad on 15.6.1981 at 17.30 hours and the reason for delay was explained in the first information report itself by stating that the informant could not approach the police earlier on account of fear of the accused persons. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Bhola Singh P.W. 2, Kalawati P.W. 3, and other persons of the village, i.e., Kaushal Kishore, Sant Bux and Ram Lakhan etc. The first information report also stated the motive for commission of the crime. It was stated in the first information report that one Chiya Devi who was sister of Appellant No. 2, Nankai Singh and was married in village Gunare with younger brother of Appellant No. 6, Triloki Singh had developed illicit relations with Munna Dubey. Sometime before the incident, on ''Nagpanchami'' day, this Chiya Devi disappeared from her matrimonial home. Her father Mata Din and brothers who were resident of village Narauli Bujurg suspected that Munna Dubey had his hand in disappearance of Chiya Devi. It is because of this reason that the Appellants had come together to the house of the Munna Dubey and had committed aforesaid offence. The victim at that time was in a room which was towards north east corner of the house and an adjoining shop. Out of the accused, Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are resident of village Narauli Bujurg. Appellant No. 9 is also original resident of Narauli Bujurg but was said to be residing in village Karman police station Tharyaon. Similarly the Appellant No. 8 is the resident of village Fadilabad but was residing at Narauli Bujurg.

Appellants No. 2 and 3 Nankai and Asha Singh are real brothers being sons of Mata Din, Appellant No. 4 Arun Singh is son of their cousin brother Ram Nihor. Appellant No. 7 Chheddu Singh is real brother-in-law and husband of their sister Madhu. Appellant No. 1 Nanku Singh is resident of village Narauli and the Appellant No. 8 Mister Singh is son of his "sala". Appellant Nos. 5 and 9 Iqbal Singh and Baggi Singh are said to be the khandani of Mata Din and Nankai Singh. Thus, all the Appellants are related or connected in one manner or the other.

On the report being lodged by Putan Prasad real brother of the victim, Case Crime No. 98 of 1981 was registered at Police Station, Husainganj by Sri Ansar Ahmad P.W. 4. A special report of the incident was sent from the police station on the same day at 18.30 hours through constable Hausala Prasad. The investigation of the crime was taken up by S.I. Raghuvir Singh P.W. 5 S.H.O. of the Police Station. He recorded the statement of the informant at the police station itself and proceeded to the place of occurrence. A search was made to trace out the body of Munnu but it could not be found. Next day morning he recorded the statement of Kalawati P.W. 3 and other witnesses including Bhola Singh P.W. 2, made a spot inspection and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-5), made a search in the house of the accused persons but could not find them there. Again attempt was made to detect body in the river Ganga but it could not be traced out. He deputed same police personnel to recover the body and also to trace out the accused persons. On the second day, i.e., 17.6.1986 again attempt was made to search out the body of Munna Dubey in the river but it could not be found. Two constables were left on the spot by him for the purpose of recovering the body from the river and he himself returned to the police station. The accused persons thereafter surrendered in the Court on 22.6.1981 and 29.6.1981. After conclusion of the investigation first charge-sheet was filed against eight accused persons, i.e., Appellant Nos. 1 to 8. The Appellant No. 9 Baggi Singh was challaned subsequently on 28.12.1981.

In order to bring home the charge against the Appellants three witnesses of fact were examined by the prosecution. They are Putan P.W. 1, brother of the victim Bhola Singh, P.W. 2, and Smt. Kalawati P.W. 3 mother of the victim.

According to Putan Singh P.W. 1 Chiya Devi had developed illicit relations with his brother Munnu. She used to visit their house and stay back there alone for hours lying in their bedroom. He also stated that there was no previous enmity between him and the Appellants. On the fateful day most of the persons of the village had gone in a barat of the son of Thakur Bagher Singh of the village. Ladies and children were left in the village. Even his own father had gone in the said barat. When the Appellants arrived at the place of occurrence and entered into the room where the Munna Dubey was lying, this witness was on the main door of his house. His mother Smt. Kalawati and brother Rajjan were inside the house when culprits started beating Muna Dubey in the room. The witness raised alarm and shouted for help. On this Kalawati, Rajjan, Bhola Singh and other witnesses gathered on the spot. As they tried to advance to interfere, the Appellants threatened them not to come closer lest they too would be given same treatment. The victim was pulled and brought outside of the house and in front of the main door again he was beaten. On account of fear of the accused persons, witnesses receded back. He saw Appellants Triloki Singh, Mister Singh, Nankai Singh and Chheddu Singh caught Munnu Prasad from his hands and had pulled him out of his room. They were accompanied by culprits who were armed with guns and lathi and were wielding weapons on the victim. Later on they took Munna Dubey towards river Ganga and kept on assaulting him on the bank of the river. After assaulting Munnu Dubey at or near the bank of the river, his body was thrown in river and there it disappeared.

Putan further stated that on account of fear of the accused persons, witnesses from the village were not ready to depose against them. He further stated that after Chiya Devi disappeared from her matrimonial home, the Appellant Triloki Singh had entertained a suspension on Munna Dubey. He had come to Munnu Prasad and asked him to ensure that Chiya Devi returns back home.

It is to be noted that according to Putan Singh, Munna Dubey alongwith Appellant No. 1, Nanku Singh and the Appellant No. 2 Nankai Singh were together challaned in a case u/s 307, I.P.C. He also admitted that Munnu Dubey was also challaned in a dacoity case of district Unnao.

Narrating the incident Putan P.W. 1 stated that the accused persons took the victim towards the river Ganga which was flowing towards North. The witness and Ors. followed them upto the house of Suraj Din. From the "chabutra" of Suraj Din, they saw culprits assaulting Munnu Dubey and dropping his body in the river.

Bhola Singh P.W. 2, one of the eye-witness was declared hostile when he denied having witnessed any such occurrence and added that he had seen Munnu at Fatehpur going alongwith another man. He was cross-examined by the prosecution and in his deposition he admitted that all the accused persons are either related to one another or they are of one group. He also admitted that the family of Munnu Dubey was not in speaking terms with the accused persons since last 1''1/2 years. He admitted that his brother was also murdered in the past. He admitted that the Appellants Nanku and Nankai Singh had belaboured him and had broken his bones for which the prosecution was lodged against them but they were acquitted because the police failed to produce proper evidence in the matter. He was given suggestion that a day before his statement in the Court, some muscle men relations of the accused persons had come in the pairvi of the case and he under their pressure was not speaking truth. He also admitted that prior to the incident in question his father had lodged a case u/s 307, I.P.C. against the Appellants. Thus, it is clear that this witness was not speaking truth on account of his enmity and fear of the accused persons.

Smt. Kalawati P.W. 3 is mother of the victim. She has supported the prosecution story and named all the accused persons and described how they assaulted his son in the room and thereafter in front of her house and then they promptly took him away alongwith them by using force. She further stated that when witnesses tried to go near culprits, they were threatened. She also supported the prosecution with regard to the motive for the commission of the crime and added that Mata Din and his family members used to suspect Chiya Devi''s illicit relations with Munnu. According to her before the incident in question but after Nagpanchami when Chiya Devi disappeared Munnu Dubey shifted to Fatehpur since he had come to know that Mata Din and his family members were annoyed with him on account of disappearance of Chiya Devi. She admitted that Munnu was earlier charge-sheeted in two dacoity cases and was accused in gangster case.

As against this the Appellants examined D.W. 1 Nar Singh Bahadur Singh in the trial. Appellant No. 1 Nanku Singh in his statement u/s 313, Cr. P.C., took a stand that in the marriage of Awdhesh (Appellant Arun Singh''s brother), Munnu Dubey''s father Gaya Prasad was engaged as Purohit. He was entrusted two gold chains which he claimed to have been lost by him. Later on when he was pressurised and chastised he returned the said two gold chains. On account of this insult and humiliation the first informant had lodged a false report against the Appellants. He claimed that S.H.O. Raghubir Singh was annoyed with him on account of some proceedings u/s 145, Cr. P.C. and further claims that he is entangled in litigation with Nankai Singh and therefore, he could not have joined commission of crime with Nankai.

A common defence of the Appellants in the trial court was that Munnu Prasad was a dacoit and was absconding. Appellant Nankai Singh claimed enmity with Jagat Pal, father of Bhola P.W. 2. Appellant Arun Singh has also stated that it was the marriage of his real brother Audhesh Singh in which Gaya Prasad was entrusted two gold chains which later on he feigned to have lost but he produced the same on being admonished. Appellant Triloki Singh also stated that Nankai Singh and Ors. were inimical to him and the enmity was with regard to the work of "panditai" done by the father of the victim. Appellant Chheddu Singh claimed that he was falsely implicated on account of his relationship with Nankai Singh. He claimed that Munnu Singh was a dacoit and was absconding. He has not been killed. Appellant Mister Singh stated that he is resident of his village in District Allahabad and he does cultivation there. Appellant Baggi Singh also took plea that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity.

On the above evidence, the trial court found the charge proved and believed the prosecution story in convicting the Appellant.

We have heard Sri R. K. S. Chauhan as well as Sri Kamal Krishna learned Counsel for the Appellants, Sri Danish Iqbal Faridi learned A.G.A., and have carefully gone through the record.

Argument raised on behalf of the Appellants was that a wholly concocted first information report has been lodged and Munnu Dubey, the brother of the informant was in fact a hardened and notorious criminal. In order to screen himself from law enforcing agencies, he has absconded. It was argued that Bhola Singh P.W. 2, in his deposition before the Court admitted that after alleged date of incident, he had seen Munnu Dubey at Fatehpur. In an effort to strengthen their arguments, learned Counsel submitted that no serious effort was made by the informant or his family members to recover the dead body from the river. It was further argued that in the month of June there is not much water in the Ganga and therefore, the possibility of dead body having been flown away quickly to some distant place did not exist. It was also argued on behalf of Appellants that there was undue delay in lodging of the first information report which provided an opportunity to the informant to make improvement and embellishment and implicate innocent persons. The first information report lost its credibility on account of want of spontaneity. Learned Counsel also made an attempt to shatter the case of the prosecution by saying that no independent witness was examined although the incident was claimed to have been witnessed by a number of persons. It was argued that the Appellants No. 1 (Nankai Singh), No. 5 (Iqbal Singh) and No. 9 (Baggi Singh) had no concern with the issue of disappearance of Chiya Devi and therefore, there was no reason for them to involve in the case. It was further submitted that Chiya Devi had not eloped or disappeared from her matrimonial home therefore, remaining Appellant also did not have motive for commission of the crime.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand supported the judgment of the trial court and argued that all the Appellants belong to one biradari. They committed very daring crime by kidnapping Munnu Dubey from his own house during day time in presence of his family members and within the view of villagers and relations of the victim. He was drowned in river Ganga. He has not been seen alive till today whereas the incident took place about 26 years ago. It was argued that there was no credible evidence to show that Munnu Dubey was ever seen alive again and similarly there is no evidence to show that he was absconding in connection with any crime registered with police in which his appearance was required. There was absolutely no motive for false implication and sufficient explanation was given with regard to delay in lodging of the first information report. First information report was lodged at the earliest opportunity. Remaining eye-witnesses of the occurrence are also afraid of the Appellants and in view of the offence having been committed in broad day light in presence of villagers, witnesses could not muster courage to depose against Appellants.

We have carefully examined the entire evidence on record in light of the arguments raised before us. The age of first informant Putan at the time of incident was less than twenty years. It has come in his deposition that most of the male members of the village including father of the witnesses had gone out of the village in connection with barat of son of Thakur Bagher Singh of the village. It has also come in the statement of the witnesses that when other witnesses saw the incident and tried to intervene, they were threatened by the accused persons of similar treatment to them if they came near. It can be appreciated that manner in which nine accused persons, seven of them armed with fire arms, two with lathis reached at the house of the informant in day time and within the view of the villagers belaboured Munnu Dubey and dragged him out of his room and then took him to bank of river assaulted him there and dropped his body in the Ganga, the whole episode must have caused great panic in the village and particularly in the family of the victim. In his family on that day there was nobody else in their home except Smt. Kalawati (P.W. 3) mother of the victim and his younger brother Rajjan aged about 7 to 8 years. In these circumstances if the informant says that he could not muster courage to go to the police station to lodge a report, the explanation cannot be rejected as unacceptable or unnatural. The informant in para 9 of his deposition has specifically mentioned that accused persons had given threat to the witnesses that if they came forward their limbs would be cut and on account of this threat witnesses were not inclined to depose. In such circumstances if the informant who was a boy less than 20 years of age could not go to the police station to lodge report and confined himself in his house so as to secure his own life and property, the explanation given by him appears to be genuine and acceptable. His deposition shows that even the village chaukidar was not available at village on the fateful day as he had gone to join in the barat of Bagher Singh''s son.

The question in the above circumstances would be as to whether on account of lack of spontaneity the first information report in the present case loses its corroborative value. Examining this in light of the evidence on record, we are of the view that it does not. There is nothing significant which could provide motive to the informant for making false allegations. Firstly, the victim Munnu Dubey had not returned alive after the incident. If he was not kidnapped and drowned in the river Ganga, there was absolutely no occasion for the informant to think of lodging first information report implicating as many as nine persons and that too from different families and different villages. His statement before the Court shows that prior to this incident there was normal social relationship between the family of the victim and the family of the Appellant No. 2 (Nankai Singh). In para 12 of the his deposition he says that there was no previous enmity and the family members of the two families had visiting terms with one another and invitations were extended on important occasions. Not only this his statement shows that Nankai Singh''s sister Chiya Devi was very frequent visitor to the house of the informant and she used to spend long hours at their residence and even used to lie down alone for hours in their bedroom. In para 14 of his deposition he says that Nanku Singh (Appellant No. 1), Nankai Singh (Appellant No. 2) and victim Munnu were challaned together in a case u/s 307, I.P.C. This also delineates good and harmonious relations between three of them.

In view of the above social relations and intimacy of victim, Munnu Dubey with Nankai Singh and his family it is absolutely not believable that they would have been falsely implicated on account of the suggested enmity. The defence suggestion in this regard was that Munnu Dubey''s father Gaya Prasad Dubey was a Pandit and was performing as Purohit in the marriage of Audhesh, brother of the Appellant No. 4 Arun Singh. Some gold chains were entrusted to him which he pretended to have lost somewhere. He was being compelled to pay penalty for the same @ Rs. 3,950 per tola, whereupon he pretended that two gold chains entrusted to him have been found out and returned the same. It was alleged that the stamp paper containing compromise to that effect and admission of Gaya Prasad that gold chain was returned, was not produced. The defence has taken stand that since the gold chains were returned, the said documents were destroyed. The fact remains that there is no credible evidence to support that any such incident had taken place in the marriage of Awdhesh.

However, even assuming that such an incident had taken place, it does not occur to us that it could have provided a motive to the informant to falsely implicate four persons of the family of Nankai Singh. Looking to their intimate relations and social dealings, the normal conduct would have been when the gold chains were returned by Gaya Prasad to forget and forgive and not to give unnecessary air or publicity to the said incident.

Not only this, even if the aforesaid incident as alleged by the defence could provide a grudge to Gaya Prasad or his family members against Nankai Singh or his family members, there is absolutely nothing to suggest why would the informant implicate five other accused persons alongwith Nankai Singh in this case. Significantly Appellant No. 7 Chheddu Singh is brother-in-law of Nankai Singh and is resident of Husuapur, Police Station Husainganj, i.e. he is not resident of village Narauli Bujurg. Similarly Triloki Singh (Appellant No. 6) is of a different family. He is jeth of Smt. Chiya Devi and is resident of another village Gunare within the circle of Police Station Kalyanpur. Appellant No. 1 Nanku Singh is not of the family of Nankai Singh and is resident of village Narauli Bujurg. As mentioned earlier, he was a person who alongwith Munnu Dubey was challaned by the police together in a case u/s 307, I.P.C. There was no occasion or reason for including his name in the list of the accused persons. Similarly, Appellant No. 8 Mister Singh is resident of Fadilabad, Police Station Kurali and is son of "sala" of Appellant No. 1 Nanku Singh. There is absolutely no reason for his false implication in the case. The Appellant No. 5 Iqbal Singh Appellant No. 9 Baggi Singh are also not of the family of Nankai Singh, Baggi Singh though originally belonged to Narauli Bujurg but was then residing and shifted to village Karmauna Police Station Tharyaon. There appears no reason why first informant Putan (P.W. 1) adds their names falsely in the list of accused persons.

Thus, although on account of delay in the lodging of the first information it lost its spontaneity but every delay in lodging of the first information report is not always fatal. Effect of delay is to be examined with reference to facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that delay provides an opportunity to have consultation and to make improvement and embellishment. The duty of the Court in such a situation would be to carefully examine the evidence and take into consideration all attending circumstances and draw a conclusion whether there was any possibility of false implication. If there was old enmity between the informant and the accused persons, it could be consideration for false implication of the accused on account of consultation or as an afterthought. However, where delay is duly explained as in the present case and the possibility of false implication on account of previous enmity is ruled out, the prosecution story cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging of the first information report.

It is significant to note that there is no credible evidence or any convincing circumstance to show that Munnu Dubey had ever been seen alive after the alleged date of occurrence. There is nothing on record to show that he was wanted by the police in connection with any crime which could have motivated him to abscond or run away. The mere fact that he was once or twice challaned by the police in some dacoity case or in a case u/s 307, I.P.C. is not sufficient to conclude that those cases were pending even at the time of incident or that he had failed to appear before the Court or competent authorities in connection with those crimes or had not obtained his release on bail. If defence claimed that he was a criminal and was absconding, it was easy for them to have produced certified copies of relevant record of the Court or police in order to give some credence to their suggestion. The ocular version of the incident given by Putan P.W. 1 and Kalawati P.W. 3 in the circumstances of the case cannot be rejected on bald suggestion that Munnu Dubey was was hardened criminal and had absconded.

It is true that Bhola Singh P.W. 2 had deposed in the Court that he had seen Munnu Dubey at Fatehpur after the date of alleged incident. In appreciating this statement we cannot lose sight of the fact that he is a witness who was declared hostile by the prosecution. He is Thakur by caste as are Appellants. His two brothers had been murdered earlier. He was also beaten up by Nanku Singh (Appellant No. 1) and Nankai Singh (Appellant No. 2), his hands and legs were broken. He admits that in that connection they were prosecuted and were ultimately acquitted as the police did not properly conduct investigation. In view of this status of the witness it can well be imagined that he is not daring to depose against accused persons and therefore, his stray statement that he had seen Munnu Dubey after the alleged date of incident at Fatehpur carries no value.

Raghuveer Singh P.W. 5, Investigating Officer was asked whether Munnu Dubey was wanted by the police in connection with any dacoity, he pleaded ignorance about this. Similar was the statement of head moharrir P.W. 4 Ansar Ahmad. We are of the view that this was so because Munnu Dubey was not a history sheeter or known criminal or dacoit of Police Station Husainganj.

From the above evidence and the circumstance, we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Putan P.W. 1 and Smt. Kalawati P.W. 3 that Munnu Dubey was drowned by the accused persons in the river Ganga on the date of incident and from that date he had neither been seen dead or alive.

We do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the Appellants that no attempt was made to search the body of victim in the river. From the testimony of Raghuvir Singh P.W. 5, the Investigating Officer it is clear that after registration of first information report he immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence and made attempt to recover body of Munnu Dubey from the river. The attempt continued on the next day and a day thereafter. He also detailed some police constable to continue the attempt to search out the body but it was not traced out. It has come in the statement that flow of water in the river at that time was too much. There is nothing in the statement of Putan P.W. 1 and Smt. Kalawati P.W. 3 to show that they did not make any effort to trace out the body of Munnu Dubey. These witnesses were subjected to very long gruelling cross-examination but no specific question was put to them and they were not required to answer as to what efforts were made to search out the body. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution and it cannot be inferred that no genuine effort was made to trace out the body from the river.

A perusal of statement of Putan P.W. 1 and Smt. Kalawati P.W. 3 shows that they are consistent and corroborate each other. First information report also corroborates them. There are no material contradictions in the statement which may render them weak or doubtful. It is true that in the statement of Smt. Kalawati P.W. 3 it has come that witness Ram Lakhan named in the first information report is "sala" of Putan P.W. 1. Similarly witness Kausal Kishore is the son of nanad of Smt. Kalawati. They had not been examined as witnesses by the prosecution but Putan P.W. 1 had given explanation that the witnesses have not come to depose out of fear of the Appellants. The manner in which the incident was committed was sufficient to create fear in the mind of the witnesses. Similarly Ram Naresh, devar of Kalawati could not be produced by the prosecution.

From the testimony of Putan P.W. 1 and Kalawati P.W. 3 as corroborated by first information report it is clear that Chiya Devi had disappeared from her matrimonial home and it is also established beyond doubt that she had developed intimacy with Munnu Dubey and used to visit and stay for long hours at the house of the first informant. It was therefore, natural for Nankai Singh and his family as well as Trilok Singh and his family to suspect that it was Munnu Dubey who was behind disappearance of Smt. Chiya Devi. The fact that there was suspicion to that effect is also proved from the statement of Putan P.W. 1 that few days prior to the incident Triloki Singh (Appellant) had come to village Narauli Bujurg and had spoken to Munnu Dubey with regard to disappearance of Chiya Devi and had asked him to ensure that Smt. Chiya Devi returned to her matrimonial home. The aforesaid circumstance and suspicion were sufficient for Triloki Singh and family members of Nankai Singh to join in commission of this crime. Nanku Singh and Nankai Singh were friendly to each other and Mister Singh is son of sala of Nanku Singh. Iqbal Singh (Appellant No. 5) and Baggi Singh (Appellant No. 9) are said to be of biradari of Nankai Singh. All of them are Thakur and there was sufficient motive for them to join together and commit this offence. The extra marital relation of a man with a woman in the circumstances mentioned above are difficult to be concealed and particularly when both of them are of same village. Thus, we believe that on disappearance of Chiya Devi, Nankai Singh, his family members and similarly Triloki Singh of village Gunaur entertained suspicion that there was Munnu Dubey behind this disappearance of Chiya Devi. Since she was a married lady, the said fact was sufficient to provoke the persons related to her to eliminate Munnu Dubey for ever. The association of other persons with Nankai Singh and Triloki Singh, Appellants is also quite probable and natural.

On the basis of discussions made above, we do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. The prosecution evidence in this case appears to be wholly cogent and reliable. In our opinion the trial court committed no error in relying upon such evidence and recording conviction.

Last argument of learned Counsel for Appellants was that it is a fit case where sentence awarded to the Appellants by the trial court be reduced. After giving due consideration to this argument we are of the view that the circumstance of the case warrant that the sentence of life imprisonment u/s 364, I.P.C. awarded to the Appellants be reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. It is to be kept in mind that the victim Munnu Dubey by establishing illicit relations with Smt. Chiya Devi provided cause for grave provocation to her brother and other family members and similarly to Triloki Singh who was her jeth Triloki Singh made an attempt and had given opportunity to Munu Dubey to rectify his mistake and ensure that Chiya Devi was restored to her family. Instead of availing this opportunity, Munnu Dubey after the disappearance of Chiya Devi himself left the village and started living at Fatehpur. The Investigating Officer Raghuvir Singh P.W. 5 was cross-examined on this point and his reply was that people were reluctant to discuss about Chiya Devi due to defamation and ignomy. Thus, it is clear that the provocation was so grave that forgetting their past cordial relations, relatives of Chiya Devi committed this offence with the help of their friends. In view of this and keeping in view the fact that the number of accused is as much as nine, four of them, i.e., Nankai Singh, Asha Singh, Chheddu Singh and Mister Singh are either of one family or are very close relative of one another and also in view of the fact that the offence was committed 26 years ago and appeal has come up for hearing now, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if sentence of life imprisonment awarded u/s 364, I.P.C. is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000 each. In default of payment of fine, an additional term of rigorous imprisonment for six months would suffice.

The appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of all the Appellants under Sections 364, I.P.C. and 450, I.P.C. and that of Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 u/s 147, I.P.C. and of remaining Appellants u/s 148, I.P.C. is confirmed. The sentences passed on them for all other offences except Section 364, I.P.C. are also confirmed. The sentences passed on them u/s 364, I.P.C. is reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine, they would undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months. The Appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentences.

A copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for compliance.