ALMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the morning of July 2, 1977 Hari Singh. since deceased, had gone to his field and had sown jawar. Later the three appellants and 9 others are stated to have ploughed his field in his absence. When the deceased returned to his field in the afternoon he saw the appellants and his companions ploughing his field. He was advised to report the matter to the police. At about 2 p.m. he left for the police station. While he was passing by a place known as'Sukha Jhore'the appellants and his companions attacked him. He ran into the field of P.W. 7 Rati Ram where he was overtaken and belaboured to death. The deceased had as many as 16 injuries on his person as is evident from the evidence of P.W. 10 Dr. Hari Om Singh who performed the autopsy on the next day. It may here be mentioned that according to the medical evidence all the injuries were possible by hard and blunt weapons.

(2.) The First Information Report was lodged at about mid-night by P.W. 1 Gurobai, the wife of the deceased. P. W. 4 Jaswant Singh and P.W. 6 Paramjeet kaur, the son and daughter of the deceased were cited as eye-witnesses along with P.W.1. In addition, thereto P.W. 7 Rati Ram, P.W. 8 Jorsingh, P.W. 9 Tophansingh and P.W. 11 Baldeva who had their fields in the neighbourhood were also cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. In all 12 persons were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Juge, Guna (M P).

(3.) Out of the 12 accused persons two namely Raju alias Rajinder and Jagdish were acquitted as their names did not figure in the FIR. The trial Court convicted the remaining 10 persons under Ss. 148, 149 and 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. These 10 persons challenged their conviction and sentence in the High Court. The High Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence established the participation of the present 3 appellants but not the others. The High Court, therefore, confirmed the conviction of present 3 appellants and acquitted the 7 others, against which acquittal the State has not preferred any appeal. We are, therefore, concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction of the appellants before us.