ROKAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall also govern disposal of Cr. Appeal No. 825/87 filed by Co-convict Suresh Kumar alias Chhannu as they relate to the same judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge and therefore deal with common questions of fact and law. Appellants Rokad Singh, Ramkumar and Santosh remained convicted u/Ss.148 and 302, I.P.C. while all other appellants remained convicted for offences u/ Ss. 148 and 302 and r/ w S. 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's RI and life imprison- ment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each by Judgment dated 23-6-87 passed by Shri.A. K. Saxena, 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 177/85. The appellants are challenging legality and validity of their convic- tion and sentence by filing these appeals u/ S. 374(2), Cr.P.C.

(2.) Appellants are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly to cause death of Sushil alias Vakeel and with the object in view, armed themselves with deadly weapons and actually caused death of said Sushil on 23-585 at about 11 a.m. 12 accused persons were prosicuted for the said offence but the four who were charged with offence of conspiracy have been acquitted while the appellants (8 in number) have been found guilty. Prosecution allegations were that on 23-5-85 at about 11 a.m. Sushil was returning on a motor-cycle from Patan and going to his village. Ratan (PW2) and Bhura alias Vijay (PW 4) were riding with him on pillion seat. When the motor-cycle reached near the culvert, at village Rosra, they found accused persons coming on a tractor from the opposite direction. They are alleged to have been armed with weapons lkke Pharsa, Ballam and Lathi. The appellants have earlier existing inimical relationship with the deceased. Sensing danger, deceased Sushil turned his motor-cycle to run away and in that attempt went into a nearby agricultural field and fell down. He was chased by the appellants and given pharsa blows by appellants Rokad Singh, Ramkumar and Santhosh, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. He was thereafter assaulted mercilessly by all the accused persons. Telephonic message of the rioting was conveyed to Shri D. K. Sharma, (PW 22) SubInspector who immediately rushed to the site, village Nunsar and recorded the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-3 at 1.15 p.m. In the meantime Prahlad (PW 6), Raghunath (PW 11) and one Ratan being told about the incident, by appellant Rokad Singh, went to the spot and found the deceased Sushil injured. They immediately took him to the Medical College Hospital Jabalpur where he was declared dead. Information about this death was given to the police at P. S. Garha by Prahlad and Ratan and on that basis, Marg Ex.P.-39 was recorded. Dr. Nagpal (PW 1 ) conducted postmortem examination of the dead body and found as many as 23 injuries on the person of the deceased. According to Dr. Nagpal, all the injuries were ante-mortem and the deceased died as a cumulative effect of those injuries. The appellants were thereafter charged with offences as aforesaid and put on trial, before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.3 was the F.I.R. on the basis of which investigation has Staned. According to the learned Judge Marg. Ex.P-39 could not be accepted as F.I.R. as it was subsequent in time and not recorded at the appropriate place. The learned Judge further held that Ratan (PW 2) and Vijay Kumar (PW 4) were eye-witnesses, riding on the pillion seat of the motor-cycle driven by the deceased and their evidence, which was trustworthy, was sufficient to justify the appellants'conviction. The learned Judge found no inherent contradiction between the occular evidence and medical evidence and was of the opinion that medical opinion fully supported the occular evidence. That is how the appellants have been held guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) Oral submissions on behalf of the appellants have been made by Shri S. R. Nema, Advocate, who has also taken this Court through the entire evidence on record. Shri S. C. Datt, Advocate who was also appearing for some of the appellants could not, however, remain present at the time of hearing of the appeal. He, however, filed written submissions on 14-9-92 which have been taken into consideration. The submissions of both the counsel are, however, the same and are as under :- (i) Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.3 in not the F.I.R., as it has not been recorded as it purports to be and the first information of the crime is Merg intimation Ex.P.39 which mentions only two accused persons. Apparently, therefore, involvement of other accused persons with the crime is an afterthought. (ii) Ratan (PW 2) and Vijay (PW 4) are not eye-witnesses. Their evidence is contradicted by Prahlad (PW 6) and Raghunath (PW 11). (iii) Medical evidence furnished by Dr. Nagpal does not support pharsa injury on the head of the deceased and hence there is apparent contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellants are entitled to acquittal particularly when there had been no motive and there is no allegation of serious previous history of inimical relationship. Even if the story given by Ratan (PW 2) and Vijay (PW 4) is accepted, the offence is said to have been committed by two appellants mentioned in Ex.P.-39 and that too u/ S. 326, IPC. As against it, the panel Lawyer Shri R. S. Patel, has seriously supported the impugned judgment and submitted that not only there is reliable evidence of eye-witnesses, there are also other circumstances which support the prosecution case.