PANCHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7.4.1992, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.20/90. By the judgment, the appellants namely Pancha, Anandi, Hariram, Guddu @ Amrit, Munna, Komal, Kuddu and Rammi (hereinafter referred to as A1 to A8 respectively), were convicted and sentenced as under: Name of the appellants Convicted under Section Each sentenced to undergo A1, A2, A4 & A6 147 IPC R.I. for six months A3, A5, A7 & A8 148 IPC R.I. for six months A1 to A8 302 read with149 IPC R.I. for life (two counts) A1 to A8 323 read with149 IPC R.I. for two months A1& A6 332 IPC R.I. for one year with the direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under:-

(3.) The appellants were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 in the alternative 302 read with 149, 323 and 332 of the I.P.C. They abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In their examinations, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), all of them alleged that they were falsely implicated due to prevailing enmity. After entering upon defence, each of them submitted a written statement under sub-Section (2) of Section 233 of the Code. In this statement, while admitting the material facts pertaining to injuries found on the bodies of deceased and injured witnesses, they raised plea of self-defence. According to them, -- when A1, A2, A5 and A7 were sitting in front of the house of A1, Ramdayal, Munna and Mangal (PW1) carrying lathis and Dare (PW2) and Gafloo (PW3) armed with pharsas, came there and started assaulting them with the respective weapons. While defending himself, A7 caught hold of pharsa of Gafloo and during scuffle, Gafloo sustained injuries. Further, in order to defend A1 and A5 and also themselves, A2 and A7 brandished lathies, that caused injuries on the person of Ramdayal, Munna and others. At this point of time, the other four appellants also came out of the house. A4 and A8 were armed with pharsa, whereas A3 and A6 were having lathies in their hands. They also participated in defending their family members by inflicting injuries on Ramdayal, Mangal, Dare and Gafloo. Had they not intervened, the complainant party would have killed A1, A2, A5 and A7.