JIVAN LAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants along with 10 others were tried for various offences including offences under S. 148 and 302/149 Indian Penal Code in respect of an occurrence dated 11/6/1984 in which deceased Mohan Lal received fatal injuries. The trial court vide judgment of 1/6/1985, acquitted two co-accused but convicted II for various offences including offences under S. 148 and 302/149 Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. All the II convicts filed appeal in the High court against their conviction and sentence. On 9/12/1989, a division bench of the High court allowed the appeal of 8 convicts and acquitted them by giving them the benefit of doubt. So far as the three appellants herein are concerned, their conviction was maintained for the offences under S. 302/149 Indian Penal Code. The High court opined that these three appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with "other unknown persons" with the common object of committing murder of Mohan Lal as alleged by the prosecution. By special leave, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Keshwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. U. N. Bachawat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and examined the record.

(3.) The trial court as well as the High court relied upon the testimony of Swami Public Witness 8, brother of Mohan Lal and Saraswati, Public Witness 9, the mother of the deceased. It was found by the courts below that on the fateful day of 11/6/19844 at about 8. 00 a. m. , the appellants armed with guns and a farsa attacked the deceased while he was proceeding with his brother Swami Public Witness 8 towards the betel grove. The trial court as well as the High court found that Public Witness 8and Public Witness 9 had given a correct account relating to the assault and while Public Witness 9 had specifically stated that appellants Jivan Lal and Halkoi fired upon the deceased, Dashrath hit him with a farsa. Public Witness 8 Swami has corroborated Public Witness 9 by deposing that he had seen these accused along with others variously armed by the side of his brother who was lying on the ground. The submission of Mr. Keshwani that the courts below committed an error in relying upon the testimony of Public Witness 9, the solitary eyewitness, as according to him, she was an interested witness and since she had implicated 10 other accused also, her testimony could not be relied upon, does not appeal to us. He referred to certain judgments of this court to urge that conviction could not be based on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, who has been disbelieved in respect of a part of the occurrence or who has been found to be otherwise interested in the prosecution.