TARSINGH & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants -accused Tarsingh and Unclesingh against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28/11/2001, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in S.T. No. 178/2000 whereby the learned trial Court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment. Brief facts of the prosecution story is that on 4/03/2000 at about 05:00 PM in the evening, the first informant PW1 Bhaka, son of Amarsingh and his elder brother Raisingh were going to their sister's place and when they reached near the house of appellants, both the appellants armed with bow and arrows obstructed their way and also exhorted them and thereafter started causing injuries by arrow. Bhaka (PW1) somehow manage to ran away from the place of occurrence whereas his elder brother Raisingh could not escape from the place of occurrence and went to the house of his sister Sigalibai (PW2) and when he was for drinking water, at that time both the accused persons came to the house of Sigalibai (PW2) and caused arrow injuries to Raisingh. Sigalibai, who was witnessing the incident asked them not to cause any injury but they did not stop and after causing arrow injuries to Raisingh ran away from the place of occurrence. Bhaka (PW1) came to the place of occurrence where Raisingh was lying. He orally narrated the incident and stated that appellants Unclesingh and Tarsingh caused injuries to him because of old enmity with him. Bhaka (PW1) along with Nansingh (PW3) went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR(Ex -P/6) and vide Crime No. 30/2000 to Lalji Singh (PW9) who registered the case against the present appellants. Thereafter, spot map and inquest report were prepared, dead -body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Dr. P.L. Patidar (PW7). Ex -P/1 is the postmortem report. The Doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock resulting from severe haemorrhage (In abdominal cavity contain about 2 litres of blood). Duration of death is about 12 to 24 hours from the time of postmortem. As per statement of Dr. P.L. Patidar (PW7), the death was homicidal in nature.

(2.) AFTER completion of investigation, the accused were prosecuted for commission of the aforesaid offence by the trial Court. Total nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused abjured their guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. In defence, Dr.C.S. Rosaliya (DW1) was examined by the appellants. The defence of the appellants before the trial Court was that their injuries (Ex -D/4 & D/5) were not explained by the prosecution. They have also taken the plea of right of private defence.

(3.) DR . C.S. Rosaliya (Dw1), who has examined the accused, found one lacerated wound 1 c.m. X 1/2 c.m. X 1/2 c.m. on left lower chest on the person of appellant Tarsingh and one lacerated wound 1/2 c.m. X 1/4 c.m. X 1/4 c.m. on left little finger and another 1/2 c.m. X 1/2 c.m. X 1/4 c.m. on left ring finger on the person of Unclesingh, which are simple in nature.