BABOO LAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and findings recorded by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in the S. T. No. 74/90 whereby accused persons were held guilty of offences under Sections 148, 333, 307/149,302/149 and 396, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years, 2 years, 5 years and life imprisonment respectively but no separate sentence was recorded for offence under Section 396 in view of the sentence awarded under Section 302/149, IPC.

(2.) The alleged incident occurred on 10-11-87 at 5 p.m. in the Karvoli Forest, taking a toll of two lives, namely Rajendra Bhargava, a forest guard, on the complainant side and Kashiram, on the accused. In the same incident, complainant Bhagwan Singh (PW 1), a forest guard, also received serious injuries. On the said date, Bhagwan Singh (PW 1), while on duty as a beat guard, was informed by deceased Rajendra Bhargava, a forest guard, that the accused persons were illegally felling teak woods, therefore, he rushed to the spot with other forest personnel. Deceased Rajendra Bhargava forbade the accused from doing so, but they just ignored his words, and rather, threatened the forest staff to go away or face dire consequences. They scuffled and in a melee injured Rajendra Bhargava and Bhagwan Singh. Apprehending a serious danger to their lives, Bhagwan Singh fired from his licenced gun twice which further aggravated the situation. His gun was snatched and badly damaged and he was forced to run for life. The accused surrounded Rajendra Bhargava and struck fatal blows with axes which resulted in his death. Bhagwan Singh lodged a report at police station Bamhori on the same date. After usual investigation, a challan was laid and charges were drawn up against all the accused for offences under Sections 148, 333, 396, 307/149 and 302/149, IPC which they denied and pleaded false implication. The learned trial Judge on a minute scrutiny of the evidence on records passed the impugned judgment.

(3.) Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, led us through the appeal records and strenuously contended that it appears to be a case of over implication of the accused for the facts that out of five injuries noticed on the body of deceased, only two are incised wounds and that too, only one on a vital part; that the post-mortem report revealed that the deceased also received a pallet injury from the gun shots fired by Bhagtwan Singh (PW 1) and that PW 1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not recognize some of the accused. Shri Jain placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the matter of Kalinder Bharik v. State of H.P., (AIR 2000 SC 3618) urged that the offence in question at the most, amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and alternatively, he canvassed to fasten liability only for individual acts. Shri S. K. Rai, learned Panel Counsel for the respondent/State, supported the impugned judgment and argued that in view of consistent evidence and incriminating materials on records against the accused, the impugned judgment does not call for our interference.