GULAB SINGH YUVRAJ SINGH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. YUVRAJ SINGH:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH:YUVRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals arise out of an incident/incidents which took place on 21/3/1981 in Village Gorkapar. Injuries were received by the complainant party as well as by the accused party. The trial court acquitted all 33 accused persons vide its judgment dated 17/5/1983 in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1981. The High court, by its impugned judgment dated 25/1/1985, set aside the acquittal of 21 accused persons while maintaining the acquittal of 12. The 21 accused persons were convicted for various offences by the High court and sentenced in the manner which we shall presently indicate. The accused filed Criminal Appeals nos. 36-38 of 1986 by special leave challenging their conviction and sentence while the complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1986 by special leave questioning the inadequacy of the sentence as also the acquittal of the 12 accused. The State has also filed an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1986 on special leave being granted, questioning the acquittal of the 12 accused as also the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the 21 accused.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into the record, we find that it is not necessary for us to go into the detailed facts of the case or to discuss the evidence led in the case. Suffice it to say, that the reasons given by the High court in its judgment dated 25/1/1985, setting aside the acquittal of the 21 accused, are well-merited. The reasons are cogent, sound and reasonable and we do not find any justification to take a view different than the one taken by the High court insofar as the conviction of the 21 accused is concerned. No infirmity in the appreciation of evidence or the conclusions arrived at by the high court have been brought to our notice by any of the parties. The trial court, in our opinion, dealt with the evidence led in the case, including the medical evidence, in a rather light-hearted manner and recorded the order of acquittal by giving benefit of doubt and if we may say so, that too rather hesitatingly. The High court, therefore, justifiably and rightly set aside the acquittal of the 21 accused persons and the reasons given by the High court appeal to us and we accept the same. The reasons for maintaining the acquittal of 12 of the accused persons are equally sound and we see no reason to take a contrary view.

(3.) After convicting the 21 accused persons, the High court directed kundanlal and Dashrath to be bound over in a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 each for a period of two years, to keep peace and good behaviour, to appear and receive sentencewhen called upon during this period. The remaining 19 out of the 21 accused were sentenced in the following manner.