RAMASHRAYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein challenge their conviction and sentence under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. They were tried by the Fourth Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, alleging that they caused the death of one Ajeet. The prosecution case was that on 19-12-1987 when the deceased-Ajeet and his son, Laljee, were doing some work in their paddy field, the appellants came there in their bullock cart. Deceased-Ajeet was grazing his buffaloes near his field and a little away, his son Laljee, was collecting bundles of paddy. It seems that the appellants wanted to drive their bullock cart through the Tewda field of the deceased. Deceased-Ajeet, objected to this and there ensued a quarrel between Ajeet and the appellants. Appellant-Kripa Ram tried to hit the deceased on his head but the blow fell on the shoulder of the deceased. Seeing this, Laljee came near the deceased to save him, but Ajeet shouted, "Run away son, they are waiting for you, do not come this way." According to the prosecution, both the appellants inflicted severe injuries on the deceased-Ajeet and he fell down on the ground. Seeing the altercation and beating being given to his father, Laljee ran away and on the way met Hirday Kumar. They returned to the place of incident and saw Ajeet lying dead on the ground. Later, the matter was reported to the Police. The Inquest Report was prepared and the body of Ajeet was subjected to post-mortem. The recovery report was also prepared. Two broken pieces of the tooth of Ajeet were recovered from the place of incident along with blood-stained earth and the 'lathi' alleged to have been used to kill the deceased.

(2.) PW-1, Laljee; PW-2, Sukalu; and PW-6, Basant are the witnesses who were examined on the prosecution side. PW-1 narrated the whole incident in detail. PW-2 only spoke about the presence of the accused at the place of the incident. PW-6, Basant deposed that he had heard Ajeet shouting that he was being killed and saw the appellants assaulting him with 'lathi'. The evidence of these witnesses was satisfactorily proved by the prosecution.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who contended that these witnesses were interested-witnesses and the Courts below erred in placing reliance on these witnesses. We do not find much force in this contention.