RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.15/1994, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) PROSECUTION's case, in short, is that, on 2.8.1993, the deceased Jeevanlal was working on his shop, situated at village Maheshwar (Police Station Bareli, District Raisen). At about 2 p.m. in the noon, daughter of the accused Jasraj came to his shop to purchase a Rakhi. Thereafter, she came to get it changed. Again at about 3 p.m., she came with her father Jasraj for change of that Rakhi. Jasraj insisted for refund of the payment. Jeevanlal refused to take the Rakhi back but, he gave the payment to the accused Jasraj. Soon after this incident, the appellants came to the spot and they assaulted the victim Jeevanlal by Farsa and Ballam etc. causing him so many injuries. Prem Bai (P.W.2) took her husband to the Government Hospital, Bareli and she gave an intimation (Dehati Nalshi) to the concerned Sub Inspector about the incident, which was written as Ex.P/3. Thereafter, the deceased Jeevanlal expired. His dead body was sent for post-mortem. Initially, Dr.Khare (P.W.5) examined the deceased Jeevanlal when he was alive and gave a report Ex.P/5. He found that there were 4 injuries caused to the deceased Jeevanlal. All the injuries were incised wounds caused on head, left arm, left elbow and right elbow. Some abrasions were also found on his chest and back of the deceased Jeevanlal. Dr.H.P.Singh (P.W.9) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Jeevanlal and gave his report, Ex.P/6. He confirmed the injuries which were shown by Dr.Khare and he found that the deceased Jeevanlal succumbed to the injuries. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Bareli, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raisen.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants from the charges of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of IPC but, convicted the appellants for offence punishable under sections 452, 148 and 324 read with section 149 of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.