CHUTTAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal u/ S. 379, Cr. P.C. read with S. 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. Chuttan, Jasvanth Singh and Nanehelal, original accused Nos. 2. 4 and 5 respectively are the appellants. They along with three others were tried for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302 and 325, IPC. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court set aside their acquittal and convicted Mahesh Prasad, original accused No. 1 and these three appellants under S. 302. IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for causing the death of Hariram. They were also convicted under S. 325, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.1. for three years for causing injuries to P.W. 11. the son of the deceased. The acquittal of the remaining two accused was, however, confirmed. Sometime thereafter Mahesh Prasad, original accused No. 1 died. The remaining convicted accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5 have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows. All the accused except Chuttan, the deceased and the material witnesses belong to Village Senderwada within the limits of Babai Police Station in Hoshangabad District. Chuttan, A-2 belong to a nearby village. There was old enmity between the accused and the deceased. On 30-9-79 the deceased and his son P.W. 11 were going from their house to cut and bring the grass from Khaliyan. On the way the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and attacked the deceased and P.W. 11. A-I had a spear in his hand, A-4 had a Baka (Gandasa) and the others were armed with lathis. During the assault, the deceased and P.W. 11 who were armed with sickles which they were taking for cutting the grass, defended themselves with the sickles and they started retreating. The deceased, however fell down and when P.W. 11 ran to save his father, A-1 assaulted him with a lathi to which the spear was fixed and A-4 hit him with the stick portion of the Baka. The deceased during the assault received many injuries on the head, hands, legs, chest and stomach and he succumbed to his injuries next day. The assailants after thus attacking them left the scene. P.W. 1, another son of the deceased who was following his father and his brother from behind also saw the occurrence. P.Ws. 2 and 5 also witnessed the occurrence. P.W. 1 went and gave the report Ex.P. 1 to the police next day morning. A case was registered, the inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. P.W. 6, a Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem found 9 injuries mostly on non-vital parts and opined that the death was due to the injuries on the head. P.W. 11 who received injuries was also examined by P.W. 16, another doctor and he found a fracture in his right hand. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The accused denied the offence and stated that the deceased and his four sons assaulted A-1, A-4 and A-5 and that they also lodged a report Ex. D. 5(C) at 5 p.m. on the same day. P.W. 14, another doctor examined those three accused for their injuries. Impliedly the defence suggestion was that the accused exercised their right of private defence and in that they assaulted the deceased and P.W. 11.

(3.) The trial court acquitted all of them holding that there was delay in lodging the report and there were contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 11 and the conduct of the eye-witnesses was unnatural in not taking care of the injured deceased on that night and that the defence version cannot be brushed aside. The trial court finally observed that due to these circumstances the prosecution version was doubtful and accordingly acquitted the accused.