RANDHIRSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by as many as 11 accused persons who were convicted under Sections 147, 342/149 and 304 -II/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months, 6 months and 7 years respectively by Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 133/85 by judgment dated 22 -10 -1986.

(2.) THE prosecution story was that a theft had occurred at the house of appellant No. 1 Randhirsingh Lodhi @ Randhira, which deceased Keshav, among some others, was suspected to have committed. Appellant Randhir Singh had for that reason beaten deceased Keshav and the latter had also reported the matter at Pichhore Police Station. A Panchayat was held in village Pichhore which had imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000/ - on deceased Keshav for committing that theft. Deceased Keshav had failed to pay any amount of fine. The accused persons had, therefore, started to nurture ill -will against deceased Keshav. Stones began to be pelted on the house of deceased Keshav who was compelled to leave his village Daviya Govind and shift to village Bhonti. On 3 -6 -1985 deceased Keshav with his Samdhi Patua (PW 12) again visited village Daviya Govind. On the following day, i.e., on 4 -6 -1985 at about 7.30 a.m. when deceased Keshav was at the house of Paltu (PW 3) in that village, all the 11 accused persons armed with lathi, Lohangi etc., came to the house of Paltu and forcibly carried deceased Keshav to the house of one of them, i.e., to the house of accused/appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh. The deceased was shut inside that house and beaten there. The deceased's son Nihalsingh (PW 1) reached that house and found that sound of beating was coming from behind the closed doors. He rushed to lodge a report (Ex. P/1) at Bhonti Police Station. The report was lodged at about 9.30 a.m. On the same day the Police reached the house of accused/appellant No. 1 Randhirsingh when the dead body of deceased Keshav was found lying in front of the door of that house. Two of the accused, namely, Randhir Singh and Kallua were arrested by the Police from the village on the same day and a Mogri and a lathi were respectively recovered on their information and at their instance. The rest of the accused persons were arrested after lapse of some days. Lathis were recovered on the information given by each of the accused. Post mortem examination of deceased Keshav revealed 9 wounds on his body coupled with fracture of right tibia and fibula bones and right ulna bone. The death, according to the doctor, was on account of shock due to multiple injuries and fracture of bones. Presence of blood was confirmed on Mogri and lathi seized, as stated above, at the instance of accused Randhir Singh and Kallua vide report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. P/38. Blood -stains on these weapons had however disintegrated and origin could not be determined vide report of serologist, Ex. P/37. On these facts, all the accused persons were charged of the offences under Sections 148, 342/148 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge however convicted the accused persons of the offences under Section 147 in place of Section 148, Indian Penal Code, Sections 343/149, Indian Penal Code and Section 304 -II/149, Indian Penal Code in place of Sections 302/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner already indicated.

(3.) THE weakest part of the prosecution case no doubt consists of the circumstance that there is no evidence to show who were present inside the closed doors of the room of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh and who actually participated in the alleged beating of the deceased. Nihalsingh (PW 1) no doubt tried to say in his evidence that before proceeding to lodge a report, he had reached the house of appellant No. 1 Randhir Singh and had actually peeped through the crevice of the closed doors of the house. He claimed in his evidence that he had seen some of the accused persons holding different weapons and actually beating the deceased inside the room. There is no difficulty in holding that this part of his evidence was an improvement. Nihalsingh was contradicted both by report, Ex. P/1, and his police statement, Ex. D/1, showing that he had not done any kind of peeping nor seen any part of the actual assault taking place inside the room. He had at best heard only sound of beating emanating from that room. He had shouted for opening of the door but when it was not opened, he had hastened to the Police Station to lodge a report. He brought the Police to the room.