STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GYARSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.4.1980 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, acquitting the seven accused for alleged offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The version of the incident as contained in the First Information Report lodged by Nawlilbai (P.W.l), the kept of the deceased Maharaj Singh, is that she along with Maharaj Singh and her daughter Banibai were proceeding in the early morning from their house for purchase of grains. Maharaj Singh was walking ahead of the other two accompanished. They passed near the house of Veer Singh (accused/respondent No.7), who called Maharaj Singh and asked him to allow him to listen the transistor, which was in the hand of Maharaj Singh. Maharaj Singh stopped at the house of accused Veer Singh. At that time it is alleged that Veer Singh picked up an axe from the outer portion of his house and assaulted Maharaj Singh, which resulted in chopping of his left hand beneath the wrist; thereupon the other accused armed with lathis, farsa and axe started jointly! beating Maharaj Singh, which resulted in chopping of his left leg. According to Nawlibai (P.W.1), she then raised a cry and thereafter Gayatribai, her daughter-in-law, and Prakash Singh Dangi (P.W. 3) came on the spot. It is stated that at that time Maharaj Singh was lying in injured stage and was in a position to speak. It is stated that deceased Maharaj Singh in the injured stage narrated the incident to the above mentioned three persons. The First Information Report was lodged by Nawlibai who was accompanied by P.W. 3 Prakash Singh. The date of incident is stated to be on 12.11.1976 at 9 in the morning at village Tarawali. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 8 miles. On the same date a report regarding intimation of death no also recorded by the police at Gyaraspur which is marked as Ex. P!2. The so-called F.I.R. (Ex. P/I) is also stated to have been lodged at the same time when Ex. P12 report-was made. In the report, Ex. P,/2, there is no mention of the fact that the incident was witnessed by Nawlibai, Prakash Singh and Gayatribai. There is also no mention of the names of the other eye-witnesses, P.W. 2 Harisingh, P.W. 6 Hanumant Singh and P.W. 8 Shankarlal. The accused persons were arrested on 19.11.1976. Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Maharaj Singh was done by Assistant Surgeon Dr. G.T. Khcmclwndani (P.W. 7) and, as per his post-mortem report (Ex. P12), the following injuries were found Lacerated wound Scalp occipital region transverse Line 7 C.m. x 1 c.m. Antemortem lacerated wound scalp Rt. side 3 c.m. x Yz c.m. running obliquely up & post. Lacerated wound scalp Rt. side 3 c.m. postero lateral to injury two 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. contusion scalp Lt. 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. irregular. In the said report, it is also mentioned that his following limbs were cut and his bones were fractured: - - Left hand separate cut at wrist incised wound left fore arm (illegi) above stump of wrist bones 4 x 2 ante mortem. - Incised wound left foot cut at (illegi) 6 cm. transverse line 8 cm. wide 5 cm. deep: - Left tebia fibula cut only ant. Skin attachment 2 cm. intact.

(3.) Only some lathis were recovered at the instance of the accused and a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared, which are marked as Exts. P15 to P/9. lathi and axe were seized vide seizure memos, Exts. P,/1O to P,/14. The police recorded the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses on 13th and 14tNovember, 1976, which are marked as Exts. D/1, D/3, D,/4, D/5 and D/6. In the Course of trial, the case of the prosecution was sought to be proved by the alleged eye-witness account in the deposition given by P.W. 1 Nawlibai, P.W. 2 Harisingh, P.W. 3 Prakash Singh, P.W. 6 Humant Singh and P.W. 8 Shankarlal. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses. He also held that ocular version of the incident given by the alleged eye-witnesses does not get corroboration from the medical evidence. It is also held that the eye-witnesses ha.ve considerably improved their version iii the Court from the version, which was given in the statements recorded by the police. For all the above reasons, the learned Judge did not rely on the testimony of the eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused persons holding that the possibility that Meharaj Singh was killed by some other persons who were his enemies, is not ruled out.