KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Criminal Appeal u/S 374 of CrPC has been preferred by aforesaid appellants, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 26/12/2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 1998, whereby appellants have been convicted under Sec. 148, 302/149, 323/149 of IPC (on three counts) and sentenced to undergo one year RI under Sec. 148 of IPC, rigorous Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.200.00under Sec. 302/149 of IPC and further, sentenced to undergo six months' RI under Sec. 323/149 of IPC. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In brief, prosecution case is that complainant Bhagwan Singh (PW6) lodged a report at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha stating therein that he is doing farming and yesterday i.e. 16/12/1997 his sons, namely, Guddu (PW1) and Balveer (PW5) had gone for grazing cattle and since it was too cloudy in the evening, his sons could not able to return home in time, therefore, his elder brother Majbhoot Singh had gone to bring them with him. Accused Rajmohan, Sumer Singh, Viren alias Virendra Singh, Prahlad Singh, Karan Singh, Pappu and Toppa of his Village were already hiding themselves in the bushes on the way. As soon as they left from there, without saying anything else, accused Rajmohan gave a blow on the head of complainant Bhagwan Singh by means of Katarna (a sharp-cutting weapon) due to which, he fell down on the spot. Thereafter, accused Karan Singh and Viren alias Virendra Singh also gave blows of Katarna on his elder brother Majbhoot Singh. On hearing hue and cry, his sons Guddu and Balveer who had gone for gazing the cattle, reached there with whom accused Sumer, Prahlad, Pappu and Toppa also committed marpeet by means of Katarna and lathi as a result of which they had also sustained injuries. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Sambhu Singh (PW7) and Kamar Singh of his village picked up his elder brother Majbhoot Singh to home where he was declared dead. It is further alleged that one day before incident, accused persons had gone for grazing the cattle to the field of complainant party and on account of this, there was a quarrel took place between the complaint party and the accused party. On the basis of information of complainant Bhagwan Singh, an FIR Ex.P4 was lodged at Police Station Basoda, District Vidisha at around 05:20 in the morning on 17/12/1997. Police prepared Panchanama of the dead body of deceased Majbhoot Singh and thereafter, it was sent for postmortem. As per autopsy report, the cause of death of deceased Majbhoot Singh was found to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to the vital part of his brain and lung.

(3.) Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it is contended on behalf of appellants that although PW1-Guddu, PW5-Balveer and PW-6 Bhagwan Singh are alleged to be injured and eye-witnesses as well as related to the deceased, but their evidence is not reliable, because there are some inconsistencies in their evidence recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 of CrPC. It is further contended that Assistant Sub-Inspector Jitendra Singh Sengar (PW-13) in para 23 of his evidence has specifically deposed that there were no bushes at the place of occurrence which appears the prosecution story doubtful. Although injured witnesses PW1-Guddu, PW5-Balveer and PW6-Bhagwan Singh in their evidence deposed that accused Rajmohan, Karan Singh and Viren alias Virendra had caused injuries by means of Katarna (a sharp-edged weapon) to deceased Majbhoot Singh on his head but in their statements recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 of CrPC there is no such allegation, thus, the prosecution has exaggerated the allegation regarding killing of deceased by accused by means of Katarna (sharp-edged weapon). Although there is an allegation of causing injuries by means of Katarna on the head of deceased but as per opinion of doctor, there was no injury found on head of deceased caused by deadly weapon. It is further contended that Dr. K.K.Shrivastava (PW11) has clearly deposed in paragraph 28 of his evidence that there was no injury by sharp-cutting weapon on the body of deceased and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment. Bhagwan Singh (PW6) in para 10 of his cross-examination deposed that accused Rajmohan gave two Katarna blows on the head of deceased and accused Karan Singh gave two Katarna blows on the head of deceased, but deceased had sustained total two injuries on his head which does not corroborate medical evidence as except this, there is no injury found on the body of the deceased. Prosecution has not given any explanation of injuries sustained by accused Rajmohan and Karan Singh in order to right of private defence which was necessary for prosecution, thus, in absence of explanation of injuries, the prosecution evidence has become incredible. Evidence of eye-witnesses is not supported by other circumstances, hence, their evidence is not reliable.