PRABHU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX persons were put up for trial for the murder of one Kamalsingh of village Khamkheda. The incident occurred on 11th October, 1971 at about 6.00 p.m. when the deceased was returning to his village from his field with his cattle. While he was passing by Prabhu's field, the latter abused him and asked him not to take his cattle by the side of his field. This led to the two grappling with each other and on seeing this his four brothers and father, Kanhaiya, went to his aid. They were armed with sticks and piranas. They be laboured the deceased to death there and then.

(2.) THE prosecution case rests on the oral testimony of five eye -witnesses. PW -2 Nanhusingh, PW -3 Gabru, PW -6 Jagannath, PW -7 Laxminarayan and PW -8 Nandu. PW -2 filed the First Information Report which was recorded by PW -14 Mohd. Ashraf. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the aforesaid five eye -witnesses which stood corroborated by the evidence of PW -10 - - Abdul Hafiz to whom PW -2 had disclosed the names of the assailants immediately after the incident. So far as the evidence of PW -8 is concerned, the learned trial Judge observed that even if his evidence is omitted from consideration there is sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the appellants were the assailants who had caused numerous injuries to the deceased. The High Court in turn re -appreciated the evidence of the eye -witnesses and summed it up in paragraph 19 of the judgment. It too came to the conclusion that the direct testimony of the eye -witnesses fully established the fact that the assault was launched by the appellants with sticks and piranas. The High Court also came to the conclusion that they beat him to death. Both the Courts have come to the conclusion that having regard to the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased it was not possible to uphold the contention that there was no intention to kill.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants, however, contended that the offence made out is culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the quarrel had taken place rather suddenly and the three brothers had run to the aid of the appellant, Prabhu, when they saw him and the deceased grappling in the former's field. The evidence of PW -4, Dr. C.K. Dafal, however, shows that the deceased was belaboured mercilessly. There were innumerable contusions on the entire body of the deceased from head to toe. The wrist, humerus, etc. were fractured and the whole body was full of rod -marks. There were several contused lacerated wounds on the entire face and the left eye was bleeding. The totality of the injuries caused to the victim clearly supports the finding of both the Courts -below that the appellants went on belabouring the deceased till he died on the spot. In the circumstances, we do not think that we can uphold the contention that the appellants did not intend to cause the murder of the deceased.