KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants challenge their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant Karan Singh was convicted for the offences punishable under 148 and 307 (PC without the aid of149 whereas the other appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under148 and307 read with149. The prosecution case was that these appellants were on inimical terms with PW-1 Hari Singh, and that on 29.11.1981 at about 10 A.M., when Hari Singh was returning from his well his house, the appellants attacked him and caused injuries. Appellant Karan Singh was armed with a Pharsa whereas the other appellants were armed with Lathis. PW-1 Hari Singh suffered serious injuries and his left hand was cut off from the body just above the wrist joint. He suffered three other incised injuries and three lacerated wounds. Algether, Hari Singh had 12 injuries on his body when he was examined by PW-12 and PW-13. PWs 2, 3 and 4 were examined as eye witnesses. Though PW-2 and PW-3 fully supported the prosecution version, PW-4 did not support the prosecution case. The Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellants and his findings were affirmed by the High Court. Appellants Karan Singh and Banab Singh on being questioned under 313 Code of the Criminal Procedure, stated that they were attacked by PW-2 and PW-3 and contended that whatever they had done was done by way of self-defence. The other appellants stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. The sessions court as well as the High Court found that the plea of alibi raised by these appellants was not true and held that there was no attack initiated from the side of PW-1 PW-3.

(2.) Shri Sushil Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the place of incident is very near the house of the appellants and PW-1 PW-3 had come the place of incident fully armed and attacked Karan Singh and Banab Singh and that the other appellants were falsely implicated in the case. In order substantiate this contention, the counsel drew our attention Exh. D-4, which is the statement of PW-1 Hari Singh, recorded by the Dr. Jain, who had first examined him. The Exh. D-4 is the following effect:

(3.) Relying on the above statement, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident happened inside the house of the appellants when PW-1 and others came there attack the appellants. The counsel for the appellants also contended that in Exh. D-4 statement, injured had stated only about Girdhari Singh and his sons and did not name all the appellants and this indicated that the two sons of Girdhari Singh were being falsely implicated.