KARANSINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /accused have filed the appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2004 in S.T. No. 187/2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Shajapur of their conviction and sentence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for the imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default of payment of fine R.I. of 6 months under Section 325/34 for the R.I. of one year and fine of Rs. 100/ - and in default of payment of R.I. of 3 months.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 25.5.2001 at about 6 AM at Village Mehatpur when Kaniram with his Son of Sujansingh (PW1) and Mangilal (PW2) went to their field and when they asked the accused persons not to dig the pits for their fencing on the boundary of their field, the quarrel ensued and the accused persons with Lathi and Sabbal caused the injury on the legs and the head of Kaniram. When Mangilal made an attempt to intervene accused persons also caused the injuries to him. Sujansingh (PW1), Chandersingh (PW7) were the eye witness. That when the accused ran away Tuphansingh (PW3), Balusingh (PW4), Parvatibai (PW8) and Mangilal (PW10) reached there and while they were taking the injured Kaniram to the Hospital, he died on his way. The FIR Ex.P/2 was lodged at about 1.30 PM in Police Station Susner by Sujansingh (PW1). The dead body of Kaniram was sent for autopsy on the same day to Primary Health Centre Susner where Dr. D.S. Parmar (PW5) had found that there were fractures in the occipital bone and the total number of injuries were 10. That the cause of the death was the injuries on the head of the deceased, and Ex.P/15 is his report. On the same day Mangilal (PW2) was examined and vide report Ex.P/6 it was reported that he was having three injuries on his body. During the investigation, Station House Officer B.S. Solani (PW17) has recovered the Lathi and the Sabbal from the possession of the accused persons and got prepared the map of spot Ex.P/13 and after usual investigation the charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.

(3.) THE accused have abjured the guilt and denied the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The defence of the accused persons was that they were falsely implicated due to the dispute over the possession of the land. No witness in the defence was examined.