GHISILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case I am unable to agree with the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court in finding the appellant/accused Ghisilal guilty of the offence u/s 307 I.P.C.

(2.) FROM he version of Santram (P.W.2) it appears that in the mid - night he heard shouts from the Tank (Talab) side and he heard voice of Mohari. Ram shouting to catch the thief, so he also ran and other villagers also ran and the thief had fired but still they followed him and then they had caught him and that they did not know him from before. Santram has further stated that the thief was trying to load the gun by sitting behind a Med and till that time they had not caught the thief and then Heera also came and he had caught the thief. Santram has further deposed that Mohari Ram had come from behind and he dealt a blow with Danda, on the hand in which the thief was holding the pistol and so the pistol had fallen down and then they had caught the thief and they had brought him in the school of the village. Mohariram (P. W. 9) has not fully supported the prosecution version regarding the incident and according to him, he had also heard shouts of thief and then he came out and saw that number of villagers had collected and so he also reached there but it was a dark night and so he could not recognize the person whom the villagers had caught. Mohari Ram (P.W.9) was cross -examined on behalf of the prosecution and he was confronted with his diary statement EX.P -10 to portion A to A. But he had denied to have given such an statement to the police.

(3.) DEENDAYAL (P.W.3) is not an eye witness but he had also heard the cries that some thief has been caught so he had also gone near the school and number of persons had collected there and Chowkidar was also there. From the version of Deen Dayal it appears that the villagers had beaten Ghisilal and that he had number of injuries. Parasram (P.W.4) has also stated about hearing shouts of thief -thief in the night and the villagers had caught one person who was thief but he did not recognize that person and this person had not indentified the accused as the person whom the villagers had caught. Parasram (P.W.4) had also not fully supported the prosecution version. Heera Lal (P.W.5) and Ramesh (P.W.8) have also not fully corroborated the prosecution version and both these witnesses had also been permitted to be cross -examined on behalf of the prosecution. According to the version of Station Officer, Hanumant Singh Rajput (P.W.10) on the spot he had recovered six live cartridges point 22 taking a search of the accused Ghisilal which he had seized as per seizure memo EX.P -7. But in this regard Santram (P.W.2) has given a different version. According to Santram (P.W.2) they had taken the Katta and Kartoos (cartridges) to the Thana. It was also the contention of Santram (P.W.2) during his cross -examination that it was correct that the Police had not seized the Katta and Karttos from the thief. San tram had also deposed the fact that the thief had been badly beaten by the villagers.