NANDRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 9/8/2000 passed in S.T. No.35/96 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora, district Rajgarh (M.P.), whereby convicted the Appellants under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"), sentenced to RI for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- to each. The Appellants have also been convicted under Section 148 of "the IPC", sentenced to RI for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- to each. In default of payment of fine, each Appellant shall suffer additional RI for three months in two counts.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, on 7.11.1995 at about 6-6.30 p.m. complainant Hanri Singh (P.W.-8) had gone to his field with a tiffin for his Bhabhi Maa from his house situated in village Amargarh. In the field his Bhabhi Maa and Batedar (partner) were sleeping. After reaching of Hari Singh, Batedar left for village Amargarh. Thus, complainant Hari Singh and his Bhabhi Maa namely Gulab Bai remained at the field. At about 7 to 8 P.M. when Gulab Bai was lying on bed and complainant Hari Singh was sitting nearby, 5-6 persons came from the side of village Amargarh having Lathis and Farsis. The deceased Gulab Bai said Hari Singh to run away and seek help. Hari Singh ran away up to some distance and by hiding himself behind the heaps of stones and dust, saw that Appellants had assaulted Gulab Bai. Upon hearing cry, wife of Chhitar Singh reached on the spot. Gulab Bai succumbed to her injuries. Complainant Hari Singh lodged the report in the police station (Ex.P/32), on the basis of which police registered Crime No. 152/95 for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of "the IPC", against five persons. On preparation of inquest report (Ex.P/21), the dead body was sent for postmortem examination and the same was conducted by P.W.-4 Dr. B.K. Gupta. The postmortem report is Ex.P/14. Accused persons were arrested and on their disclosure statements, weapons were seized. Investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, who were acquainted with the facts of the case and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against Appellants.

(3.) Appellants refuted the charges and pleaded their false implication on account of previous ill-will. They have examined two witness in their defence, whereas prosecution has examined, in all, 15 witnesses. Learned trial Court finding the Appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned herein-above.