MOHANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him by learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch in the matter of Sessions Trial No. 64/1995, the appellants have approached this Court by preferring this appeal. Learned Judge had convicted the appellants for the offence punishable u/Ss. 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of the IPC and sentenced each of the appellants to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- and one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in respective counts. In default of payment of fine each appellant was further sentenced to undergo one month R.I. six months R.I and one month R.I., in respective sections. However the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court is that on 7-2-1997 complainant Balwant Singh (P.W. 2) lodged the report in the police station that he was taking tea in his house along with Amar Singh (P.W. 3) and one Basantilal in the evening at 6.00 p.m. At that time his brother-in-law Ramsingh reached over there for calling them for taking supper. At that juncture, appellants having farsa, dharia and lathi tried to surround the deceased Ramsingh upon which Ramsingh ran away to save himself towards his house. They chased him and surrounded him in front of the house of one Fatesingh. Thereafter, they made exhortation to kill deceased Ramsingh and also delivered threat to kill the person who would come to save him. Appellant No. 1 Mohansingh dealt a farsa blow on the head of deceased Ramsingh. Appellant Ramesh S/o Khemraj caused injury on the head by dharia (a sharp edged weapon) resulting into fall of deceased on the ground. Blood was oozing from the wounds, thereafter again appellant No. 1 Mohansingh caused injury on the back portion of the head of deceased by farsa and appellant Ramesh S/o Khemraj by dharia. Amarsingh (P.W. 3) tried to rescue deceased Ramsingh but he too was assaulted by appellant No. 7 Charansingh by dharia and appellant No. 6 Ramesh Bairagi S/o Kalidas by lathi. Amarsingh also fell on the ground, thereafter also he was assaulted by Charansingh by dharia and appellant No.6 Ramesh S/o Kalidas by lathi. Thereafter, he (Balwantsingh, P.W. 2) also tried to save them but he was also assaulted by lathi by appellant Rajmal and Babulal. Upon hearing the sound of quarrel, villagers assembled there on which appellants ran away. Balwantsingh (P.W. 2) also mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P.2) that appellant No. 1 Mohansingh abducted the sister-in-law of the deceased Ramsingh in the preceding year from the date of incident and there was a Court case for this because, of which they were having animosity. On the basis of the report, police registered the offence and entered into investigation. Injured Ramsingh was sent for medical examination at Public Health Centre, Jeeran where Dr. Pradeep Sharma (P.W. 8) examined him and found incised injuries on his person. He issued MLC report (Ex. P.30) and injured Ramsingh was referred for further treatment to Government Hospital, Tehsil Neemuch where he died in the same night. The police of police station, Neemuch received information about death of deceased Ramsingh in the hospital on the basis of which morgue intimation was recorded and R.LJ. Mansuri (P.W. 9), ASI went to hospital and prepared inquest report (Ex. P3) and thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem and the same was performed by Dr. N. K. Goyal (P.W. 5), Postmortem report is Ex. P.27. R. U. Mansuri (P.W. 9) sent the murg diary to Jeeran police station in whose jurisdiction the incident was occurred. S.H.O. Dinesh Sharma (P.W. 10) received morgue diary and also registered the offence u/S. 302 of the IPC against the appellants and proceeded into investigation. After necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for the offences punishable u/Ss. 148, 302/ 149, 323/149, 324/149 of the IPC and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) Before the trial Court appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. According to them, they were falsely implicated because of enmity. In defence they examined one witness Pandit Saulal Sharma (D.W. 1). The learned trial Court tried the appellants and on the basis of prosecution evidence convicted the appellants as mentioned herein above.