CHHOTELAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar vide judgment dated 31/8/96 in Sessions Trial No.97/95. Except appellant no.9 Mohan, rest of the appellants are convicted for the offence under section 147, IPC and sentenced to one month's R.I. and for the offence under section 302 read with 149, IPC, they are sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months. Appellant no.9 Mohan is convicted for the offence under section 148, IPC and sentenced to one month's R.I. and for the offence under section 302 of IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.

(2.) According to prosecution, on 29/9/95, deceased Dhruv alias Daulat along with Ashok Kumar (PW5), Dheeraj (PW6), Naresh (PW7) and Leeladhar (PW12) was returning to his home after attending the "Akhara". Due to pain in the stomach of Ashok Kumar (PW5), they went to the shop of appellant no.2 Gorelal for purchasing medicine. When they reached the shop then all the appellants surrounded deceased Dhruv and started beating him which resulted into his death. Dhruv fell unconscious. He was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. After investigation, appellants were arrested and challan was filed against them. Trial Court framed the charges against the appellants and on denial of the charges, appellants were tried and after recording evidence, trial Court convicted the appellants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that eyewitness account is not at all reliable and in fact appellants have been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the whole trial is vitiated as without committal of the case to the Court of Sessions under section 193, Cr.P.C, trial is bad and deserves to be quashed. He referred to the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Gangula Ashok Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 2000 SC 740). Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the case of Gangula Ashok (Supra) is followed by the apex Court in the case of Moly Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2004 SC 1890). Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that committal of the case is mandatory and in the event of violation of mandatory provisions, the whole trial is vitiated and judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside and the case be sent back for de novo trial. He read entire evidence on record and submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.