JAGESHWAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thirteen persons were arraigned for rioting and murdering one Ram kumar and assaulting. two others. Out of them the Sessions Court convicted only one (Damodar) of the offences under Sections 302 and 323indian Penal Code , and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and RI for 9 months respectively. All others were acquitted. The convicted person filed an appeal before the high Court of Madhya Pradesh. The State of madhya Pradesh filed another appeal against the acquittal of the other accused. The High court dismissed the appeal filed by Damodar, but allowed the State's appeal and convicted three more persons of the offence of murder with the aid of Section 149indian Penal Code , and a few other accused of lesser offences. The present appeals are at the instance of Damodar and those three others who have been convicted of the offence of murder read with Section 149indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts, in brief, of the case are these: there is an Ashram owned by Baba jagat Mohan (Public Witness -15) situated on the bank of Narmada River. Deceased Ram Kumar. Gaurishanker (Public Witness -13) , Radheyshyam (Public Witness - 14) , and Dr. N. K. Dubey (Public Witness -12) were the disciples of Baba Jagat Mohan and were inmates of the Ashram. On 7/12/1982, Baba jagat Mohan had a discussion with the disciples on how to check anti-social elements who were trying to create trouble in the ashram. By 8.30 P. M. , appellant Damodar accompanied by appellants Jageshwar and durga entered the Ashram with hockey sticks and lathis and insisted on having a darshan of Baba. Radheyshyam (Public Witness -14) objected saying that it was night time and that Swamiji was taking rest but the appellants attacked public Witness -14. When Gaurishanker (Public Witness -13) tried to save his colleague Radheyshyam, the appellants were reinforced as other assailants joined them. At this stage Ram Kumar came to the forefront of the Ashram and asked the assailants to stop attacking the inmates of the ashram. Then appellant Damodar gave a blow on the head of the deceased with a hockey stick. This was followed by the other three appellants beating him with lathis. Damodar fell down. In the meanwhile radheyshyam went inside the Ashram and hid himself to escape from further attacks but appellants traced him out and brought him to the front and beat him again. This is in substance the version put-forth by the prosecution.

(3.) There is no scope for interfering with the fact findings that appellant mounted the onslaught on the deceased Ram Kumar and his coinmates of the Ashram with hockey sticks and lathis. We are of the view that the high Court has correctly arrived at the said conclusion on facts.