NAMMU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants and four others were tried by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323 and other cognate offences. While the other four accused persons were acquitted of all charges, the five appellants were acquitted of the major charge of murder and convicted of various lesser offences, A-1 under Sections 148, 326 read with 149 and 34, 324, 323 and 352, Indian Penal Code, A-2 under Sections 147, 326 read with 149 and 34, 324 and 323 read with 149 and 352, A-3 under Sections 147 and 149 read with 324 and 323, and A-4 under Sections 147, 324 read with 149 and 34, 323 and 323, and A-5 under Sections 147, 324 read with 149 and 34, 323 and 323, Indian Penal Code. A-1, 2, 4 and 5 were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment while A-3, a lad of 15 years of age, was released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years. The present appellants preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against their convictions while the State preferred an appeal against their acquittal on the major charge of murder. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants but allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted all of them under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. The present appeal has been filed under the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution briefly was as follows: P. W. 1, a student aged about 20 years, was returning home from the market at about 3.30 p.m. on 21-4-1964 when he was accosted by A-1 and A-2 and questioned why he had abused A-1's younger brother. P. W. 1 replied that he had not abused A-1's brother. A-1 then gave him a few fist blows whereupon he ran away to his house. At his house he was narrating the incident to P. W. 3, the wife of his neighbour P. W. 2, when all the accused came there and surrounded his house. They abused him for some time and pelted stones. Just then P.W. 2 also returned home. He pacified the accused and sent them away. A little later P.W. 1's brothers, the deceased and P.W. 4, returned home. The incident was narrated to the deceased and P.W. 4. The three brothers decided to go to the Police Station to lodge a complaint. They came out of the house, crossed the lane and reached the road. P. W. 1 had a hockey stick with him at that time. As soon as they reached the road they heard A-5 shouting 'they are going, stop them'. On hearing the shouts the rest of the accused came there. Accused 1 and 2 had a knife and a stick each with them, while the rest of the accused were either unarmed or had sticks with them. A-1 stabbed the deceased in the abdomen with a knife while A-2 stabbed him on the hip with a knife. A-5 beat page No. W. 1 on the head with a stick. P. W. 1 was dragged into the lane by A-3, 4, 5 and 7 and given a beating. A-4 beat him on the head with a stick while A-7 beat him on the left shoulder. P.W. 4 was caught by A-3 and was beaten by A-1, A-4 and A-5. P.Ws. 2 and 3 intervened. The accused then left the scene and went away. P. W. 2 led the deceased towards his house and gave him water. He found that the intestines of the deceased had come out and blood was flowing. P.W. 4 took the deceased to the hospital in a Tonga. The deceased died in the hospital in the course of the night. Meanwhile P.W. 1 rushed to the Police Station and gave a report (Exhibit P-1) at 3.45 p.m. In the report he mentioned A-1 to A-6 as the persons who surrounded and beat him. He mentioned A-1 as the person who stabbed the deceased. He did not mention A-2 as one of the persons who stabbed the deceased. After registering the First Information Report the Station House Officer, Mahakal, Ujjain proceeded with the investigation. The Medical Officer who first examined the deceased found two incised injuries, one on the left buttock and the other in the abdomen. The intestines and omentum had come out. The same Medical Officer also examined P.Ws. 1 and 3 and found injuries on their persons. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ujjain, M. P. He gave his opinion that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the intenstines. In his opinion the abdominal injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

(3.) The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 as direct witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 1 spoke to the details of the prosecution case. In his examination-in-chief he first stated that both A-1 and A-2 stabbed the deceased in the abdomen but immediately added that A-2 also had stabbed the deceased but he did not see whether it was in the abdomen or in the back. The part attributed by him to A-2 in the attack on the deceased, of course, was a distinct improvement on the version given by him in the First Information Report where he had mentioned A-1 only as having stabbed the deceased. In his cross-examination he categorically stated that it was incorrect to say that A-2 had stabbed the deceased. He was questioned whether he had not failed to state before the police that it was A-1 that had stabbed the deceased. He asserted that he had stated to the Police that it was A-1 that had stabbed the deceased. He pointed out that in the statement attributed to him in the case diary, the name of A-1 was written first and then scratched out and the name of A-2 was written.