STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. HISAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by State against acquittal of A1 to A3 and A5 for offences under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and alternatively against A4 and A5 for offences under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Court of Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1988 acquitted the accused of all the offences vide judgment dated 29th June, 1990. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) A4 who is the principal accused and against whom overt act has been alleged, died during the pendency of the appeal on 26th June, 1991 and this Court by order dated 4-10-1991 held that the appeal against acquittal of A4 abates. Accordingly, we have before us A1, A2, A3 and A5 as respondents.

(3.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that the accused persons, with a common object of murdering the deceased Tauhid son of Naimuddin, formed themselves into unlawful assembly and in pursuance of that common object, all of them committed murder of said Tauhid by shooting him with a double barrel gun on 20th November, 1987 at about 4. 00 - 4. 30 p. m. P. W. Nos. 9 and 15 are the eye-witnesses. The prosecution case further is that at about 3. 00 -3. 30 p. m. on the date of occurrence, P. W. 3, the father of the deceased, left his village on foot to go to the Village Nahri to attend the bazaar. At some distance away when he went near the bridge, he saw his son (deceased) accompanying P. W. 15 and going towards the Village Baroli. After the deceased went further by about two furlongs, he saw a tractor driven in speed by A4 and in the trolley the other accused were sitting. It is also the case of the prosecution that all the accused were armed with guns except A4. Suddenly, P. W. 3 heard gun-shot noise and P. W. 9 came and informed P. W. 3 that P. W. 3's son (deceased) had been shot by A4 and others.