SHRIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant along with seven others faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC'). The appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 147 and 302, IPC. Other seven persons were found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with 149, IPC. Accused Mangilal, Durilal, Bhagatram and Ganpat were also found guilt of offence punishable under Section 323. All were also found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with several other custodial sentences. In appeal, one Ganpat whose name did not appear in the first information report was acquitted. All other except appellant-Shriram were convicted under Sections 304 Part II, IPC and 323 read with 149, IPC and others were convicted under Section 323 read with 149, IPC but were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. Custodial sentence of five years was imposed on the appellant-Shriram with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation. Because of passage of time already spent in custody instead of custodial sentence, fine was imposed on each one of the other accused. During pendency of appeal before the High Court one Chainram died and the appeal so far he is concerned stood abated.

(2.) In a nutshell the prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows:

(3.) Information was lodged at the police station and injured witnesses were examined. The accused persons also claimed to have sustained injuries and were also examined. According to accused persons, the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have been injured were aggressor since without any reason they started assaults and they pelted stones to protect themselves. Alternatively, it was pleaded that since fight took place and specific roles were not attributed to any particular accused, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The trial Court after considering material on record convicted the accused persons as noted above. Appeal was preferred by the accused persons before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.