DADAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by appellant Dadan-Accused No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1992 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated September 11, 1998, recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Satna (Madhya Pradesh) and confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, M.P. on April 25, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 2444 of 1998.

(2.) Shortly stated the facts of the case are that according to the prosecution, the incident in question took place on December 14, 1990 at 07.05 p.m. at Kabari Tola, District Satna in front of Pan shop of one Bablu. The case of the prosecution was that on the fateful day, all the accused were standing near the shop of Bablu. Jawaharlal Sahu (deceased) came there on his scooter. All the accused persons were waiting for the deceased. They formed an unlawful assembly whose members were armed with deadly weapons like gupti, knife, iron rods etc. The common object of the accused persons was to kill Jawaharlal. On seeing Jawaharlal, all the accused started inflicting injuries on him. Jawaharlal cried for help. His brother PW 5 Motilal who was sitting at the watch shop of Ramcharan Singh, immediately reached there to rescue him, but he was also beaten by the accused persons and serious injuries were caused to him. The incident was witnessed by PW 7 Hiralal, father of the deceased, PW 9 Janki Bai, mother of the deceased as also PW 10 Bharat Kumar, brother of the deceased. Other persons also came there. The accused fled away. Jawaharlal died due to injuries sustained by him. Motilal was taken to hospital. First Information Report was lodged immediately at 8.45 p.m. The accused were arrested on the next day, i.e. December 15, 1990. They were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 as also Section 307 read with 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Usual investigation was carried out and the case was committed to the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate since it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

(3.) The plea of the accused was recorded. They denied having committed any offence and claimed to be tried.