HRIDAY RAM PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case in brief are that on 28.05.1998 at about 4.00 PM when injured Suklambar (PW-2) and his brother Ajitram (PW-1) were erecting wall, the accused/appellants came there, objected to the raising of wall and also dismantled the same. When PW-2 asked as to why his wall was being dismantled, accused/appellants started abusing and that accused Salikram caught hold of his waist and then accused/appellant Hridayram inflicted injuries on his head with the help of crowbar as a result of which he fell down and his injury started bleeding. Etwar (PW-4), Shoukilal (PW-5), Bhuru (PW-6) and Amilal (PW-7) are said to have seen the incident. Subsequently, Ajitram (PW-1) took his injured brother (PW-2) to the Police Station in a jeep where FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the accused/ appellants under Sections 307/34 IPC. After medical examination of the injured, and completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under the same section followed by framing of charge accordingly. During investigation, seizure of pillow kept under the head of the victim was made under Ex.P-2 and that of crowbar from accused Hridayram was made under (Ex.P-3) and that of club from accused Salikram was made under (Ex.P-4) - all in presence of witnesses Satyanand (PW-3) and Shoukilal (PW-5).

(2.) Learned court below vide judgment dated 16.09.1999 passed in Sessions trial No. 99/98 convicted the accused Hridayram Patel under Section 307 IPC and accused Salikram under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for four years. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/ appellants submits that the findings recorded by the Court below are contrary to the material available on record and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. He submits that the so called eyewitnesses PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 though have turned hostile yet this fact has been ignored by the Court below while passing the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants for causing injuries to PW-2. He further submits that the statement of defence witnesses has also not been considered by the court below.