(1.) This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the accused/appellants is directed against a Judgment dated 22nd June 1999 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 4/98 by the Additional Sessions Judge Sheopurkalan (M.P.), holding thereby both accused/appellants guilty for commission of murder of Ram Prasad, son of Ratanlal, which is an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, they were further directed to serve out three months' more additional imprisonment.
(2.) The facts, in short, just for the decision of this appeal are that on 21st September 1997 at about 11 p.m., in night, on public way of Puliya Colony, adjacent to Chambal River on account of previous dispute over forcibly liftting the wife of the accused Mister @ Mahavir by the brother of deceased, namely, Shivcharan, accused Mister @ Mahavir armed with the sharp edged weapon "Ranpee" and his brother Ganesh with a lathi reached the spot where Ram Prasad and Ramdayal were present. Due to previous enmity, the accused started beating Ram Prasad with lathi. Since lathi of accused Ganesh was broken due to come into contact with the bicycle belonging to deceased, accused Ganesh snatched away an axe from Ram Dayal with which he inflicted injury on the head from back side to Ram Prasad. Accused Mister @ Mahavir also caused injuries by Ranpee (the sharp egged weapon) on the head of Ram Prasad. Consequently, Ram Prasad fell down and died on the spot. It is alleged that when Ram Dayal came to rescue the injured, he also received injury on his hand.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants is that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is against the law and thus is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly evaluated the evidence. The conviction of accused is totally based on the solitary statement of injured witness, who had the inimical relations with accused. The conduct of the said injured witness is unnatural and unbelievable. Moreover, the eye-witness Phool Chand, Village watchman was not examined by the prosecution. At the time of incident there was a dark night and therefore identification of miscreants was under doubts. The FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed. The statement of injured witness is not supported by the medical witness. On the aforesaid, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the accusedappellants be acquitted of the offence.