KRIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the son of deceased-Balwantsingh who died in an occurrence which took place on 10th June, 1992. As many as 10 accused-respondents were sent up for trial for the said homicidal death of Balwantsingh. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 22nd March, 1994 convicted the accused respondents 2 to 11 for offences under Section 148 and 302/149, IPC. The respondents were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. For an offence under Section 148, IPC, all the 10 respondents were awarded one year R.I. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-respondents 2 to 11 preferred two appeals in the High Court. Five accused joined in each of the two appeals. By the impugned order and judgment dated 28th July, 1999, the High Court, while holding accused-respondents 2 to 11 guilty found that the offence committed by the accused did not fall under Section 302/149, IPC and relying upon medical evidence as well as testimony of the eye-witnesses, came to the conclusion that the offence, of which the respondents could be convicted, would squarely fall under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, IPC. Keeping in view the role played by each one of the accused in the occurrence and the weapon with which the accused were armed, the High Court convicted Indersingh, Manoharsingh, Dhansingh and Ajabsingh for an offence under Section 304, Part II/149, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them which by that time was found to be more than 7 years. Their sentence of one year R.I. for an offence under Section 148, IPC was maintained. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(3.) As regards accused Ghisaji, it was found that on the date of the judgment, he was eighty years of age. While maintaining his conviction for an offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, IPC, the High Court directed his release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. So far as remaining accused are concerned, namely, Chandersingh, Sajansingh, Bahadarsingh, Raisingh and Kalusingh, who were alleged to be armed only with lathis at the time of occurrence, while maintaining their conviction for an offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, IPC, the High Court sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for two years' RI each for the said offence. Their conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 148, IPC was, however, affirmed. This appeal by special leave calls in question the acquittal of the respondents Nos. 2 to 11 for an offence under Section 302/149, IPC.