BABULAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWELVE persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'I.P.C.'), were convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and three years for the rest of the offences. They preferred three appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment, the appeals were dealt with together and conviction and sentence in respect of Tulua (A-1), Babulal (A-2), Mahesh (A-6), Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10), Netram (A-11) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12) were maintained. Sentences of Tulua (A-1), Babulal (A-2) and Netram (A-11) were reduced to one year and two years respectively for offences relatable to Sections 147 and 148 respectively. The conviction in respect of Uttam Singh (A-3), Phool Singh (A-4), Sobran Singh (A-5), Krishna Kant (A-7) and Sarman Singh (A-8) was set aside. Tulua, Babulal and Netram (A-1, A-2 and A-11 respectively) were acquitted of the offence relatable to Section 148. They were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 147, I.P.C., while the convictions of Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12) under Section 148, I.P.C. were maintained with modified sentences. The said judgment is impugned in these appeals.

(2.) PROSECUTION version, in a nutshell leaving out unnecessary details, is as follows :

(3.) COMING to the plea of appellants relating to detailed analysis of evidence, it can only be said that while concurring with the conclusions, there need not be elaborate analysis which would be in essence a repetition of the conclusions and the reasoning. However, that does not do away with the requirement of High Court in analysing the evidence and to indicate sufficient reasons even for the occurrence. There cannot be total absence of reasons. The position is different when the appellate court reverses the findings and the conclusions. In such a case, there is an imperative requirement for detailed analysis of the evidence and reasoned conclusions. In the case at hand, the High Court has dealt with the evidence and it cannot be said that there was total absence of reasons. Though analysed in brief, yet the vital aspects have been touched.