LAWS(SC)-2004-4-129

RAMSEWAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On April 13, 2004
RAMSEWAK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein, who are 6 in number, and 6 others were accused to having caused the death of one Preetam Singh on 15-7-1980 at about 12.30 p.m. in village Bhadera which incident according to the prosecution, was witnessed by Babu Lal PW-1 and his father Man Singh PW-2 along with Karan Singh PW-6. PW-2 was the elder brother of deceased Preetam Singh, PW-1 was his nephew while PW-6 Karan Singh was the uncle of the deceased. Prosecution alleged that all the accused persons including the appellants herein had enmity with the deceased on different grounds, hence on the date of the incident they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with deadly weapons like gun, farsa, lathi, barchhi, axe etc. and attacked the deceased while he was grazing his cattle in a field at village Bhadera, causing him multiple injuries consequent to which he died. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW-1 who witnessed the incident then went to the Police Station which was situated about 3 kms. away from the place of incident, and lodged a complaint which was registered as FIR Ex. P-1. Based on the said complaint, the Police initiated investigation and came to the spot of the incident and Ex. P-2, an inquest report was prepared and the body was sent for post mortem examination. PW-9 the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body found 7 external injuries on the body out of which injury Nos. 5 and 7 were bruises while injuries 1 to 4 and 6 were incised wounds; one such wound caused the left hand of the deceased to severe from the joint of the wrist while consequent to the other injuries the deceased suffered cut wounds on the right hand and on the left side of the head. The doctor had opined that the injuries were ante mortem and the deceased had died due to shock resulting from the injuries suffered on the head and haemorrhage resulting from other injuries.

(2.) Out of the 12 accused only 11 accused were sent up for trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, including the appellants herein while the 12th accused according to the prosecution, had absconded but came to be arrested subsequently and his trial was separated and was found not guilty hence was acquitted in the said separate trial which acquittal has become final.

(3.) The trial Court after examining the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the presence of PWs. 1 and 2 at the place of incident was doubtful and PW-5 not having supported the prosecution case and noticing the contradiction between the ocular evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and the medical evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not established its case against the accused, and consequently acquitted all the 11 accused who were tried by the said Court.