CHHIDAMILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of four appeals, criminal appeal no. 707/1992 filed on behalf of seven appellants; criminal appeal nos. 708-09/1992 filed on behalf of five appellants; criminal appeal no. 135/1993 filed by one appellant and criminal appeal no. 800/1999 filed by the complainant (appellant no. 6 in criminal appeal no. 707/1992) against acquittal of Bhagwat, respondent no. 2. All these appeals are by special leave.

(2.) Shorn of all the details, we may only notice that as a result of some dispute over possession of land which originally belonged to one Deochand (absconding accused) , an occurrence took place on 22/07/1983. According to the appellants they were given possession of the land measuring 4 Kanals by Deochand after executing a registered sale deed whereas the case of the complainant party is that they were already in possession of the land and the appellants came to forcibly dispossess them. The appellants in the first cited three appeals were charged for offences under section 302/149 IPC and 148 IPC. The trial court convicted 13 appellants for offences under section 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence under section 302/149 IPC and to a sentence of one year Rl for an offence under section 148 ipc. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The case arose out of the murder of Gajraj Singh. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed appeals in the High court but without any success. In the cross case out of which criminal appeal no. 800 of 1999 arises, the High Court intervened and acquitted Bhagwat, who had been convicted by the trial court for murder of Narain, belonging to the accused party.

(3.) The trial court as well as the High Court have carefully analysed the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defence. The appreciation of evidence by both the courts appears to us to be proper and does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Faced with this situation, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the first cited three appeals drew our attention to the medical evidence of Dr. M. P. Vyas pw-3 who had performed post-mortem on the dead body of Gajraj Singh. According to Dr. Vyas injury no. 2 on the deceased was caused by some sharp edged weapon while injury no. 9 was caused on him by a hard and blunt weapon like lathi. These two injuries, it was stated, were enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The witnesses went on to say that even one of these injuries was enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that all other injuries on the deceased were simple in nature. In further examination, the witness admitted that except injuries 2 and 9, all other injuries, even collectively, were not enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. None of the injuries suffered by Gajraj Singh deceased was on the vital part of his body.