SURESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31-12-2001 passed by Special Judge [under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"), Sehore, in Special Case No. 302/2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine stipulation and RI for six months with fine stipulation respectively. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 2-9-1999 at about 10 a.m., complainant-Samandar Singh and his father Munshilal were cutting grass in their field. Thereafter, as they proceeded for their home, Ramesh, Suresh and Brindavan armed with farsas and Dharma Singh armed with sarfa (ballam), came there and started assaulting Munshilal due to which he fell on the spot. As Samandar Singh tried to escape the appellants assaulted him as well, while abusing and exhorting to kill him. Upon the shouts of Samandar Singh, his grand mother and Nathuram came on the spot, while the appellants fled. In the said incident, Samandar Singh received injuries on his hands and legs, while Munshilal sustained injuries on his head, chest and both the hands and legs. Nathuram informed about the incident to Mishrilal, Munshilal S/o. Sevaram, Ram Singh and his mother Ram Kumar Bai, who also reached the spot. Samandar Singh and Munshilal were taken by Nathuram in a bullock cart to Police Station, Bilkis, where at about 4 p.m., First Information Report [for short "FIR" (Exh. P-1)] was lodged. Munshilal and Samandar Singh were taken to Primary Health Centre, Bilkisganj from where, they were referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, but near Ratibad Village, Munshilal succumbed to the injuries thus caused. Accordingly, merge intimation was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

(2.) During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was based upon mis-appreciation of evidence on record. According to him, existence of previous enmity with regard to boundary dispute of agricultural lands, is established from the evidence on record and there are material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence and, therefore, eye-witness account is not reliable. To buttress the contention, reliance was placed on the following precedents:--