RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under S. 379, Cr. P. C. and S. 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. The five appellants before us are the original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10. They along with others were tried by the Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Ss. 148 and 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the three eye-witnesses but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all of them holding that there are certain discrepancies in the version of the eye-witnesses and therefore they are unreliable. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court in the impugned judgment convicted the five appellants under Ss. 147 and 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo one year's R.I. and life imprisonment for the respective offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case is as follows.

(2.) The deceased Halke was said to be a goonda addicted to liquor and used to beat villagers in the state of intoxication. Appellant No. 1 was one such victim. On 23-12-74 the deceased together with P.W. 1 went to remove an electric motor fitted in the well of the deceased. They could not lift the motor and they wanted the help of a third person. They went to the village to call P.W. 5. P.W. 1 went away to the house of P.W. 2 while the deceased went to the house of P.W. 5. As P.W. 2 was not in the house, P.W. 1 waited there for him. A little later P.W. 2 arrived. After 15 or 20 minutes P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 heard the noise of a chase and beating. They came out and saw the ten accused persons beating the deceased. After inflicting injuries the accused left. P.W. I went away from the village to a nearby village where he met one Kanhaiya and narrated the incident to him. Both of them returned to the village and finding the deceased dead they went back to the other village. They engaged a tonga to go to Narsinghpur to give a report in the police station. There they met P.W. 6 the brother of the deceased. A report was presented to the police. The Police Officer, P.W. 14 registered the crime, went to the scene of occurrence, held inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem. P.W. 6 gave the report to the police. The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, found 20 injuries. He also found the fracture of the left temple bone, pressure on the brain and haemorrhage. He opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of those injuries.

(3.) The plea of the accused is one of denial. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7. The learned Sessions Judge firstly held that they are all interested witnesses and they are related to each other and secondly pointed out some discrepancies in their evidence.