DHEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellants Dheer Singh and his son bishambhar Singh (along with the third appellant Raghuraj Singh - also a son of appellant Dheer Singh who died during the pendency of this appeal) have come up in appeal against their conviction and sentences passed by the learned Third Additional sessions Judge, Morena, by judgment dated 23-3-1984 in Sessions Trial No. 40/1983. Appellants Dheer Singh and Bishambhar Singh have been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment under Section 302/34 and section 302, Indian Penal Code, respectively, for the murder of Dataram. They have also been convicted under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment each for attempting to cause the murder of Shriram (PW. 1), Bhagchand (PW. 2), ramswaroop (PW. 4), Chironji (PW. 5) and Angad (PW. 6 ). The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution produced five eye-witnesses, namely, Shriram (PW. 1), bhagchand (PW. 2), Ramswaroop (PW. 4), Chironji (PW. 5) and Angad (PW. 6), all of whom belong to a closely related family, but none of the independent witnesses, said to be present on the occasion (there were as many as four of them), have been examined, with the prosecution furnishing absolutely no explanation for their non-examination. Bhagchand (PW. 2) is the father, and Chironji (PW. 5) is the brother, of the deceased dataram. Angad (PW. 6)'s son is married to the daughter of Bhagchand (PW. 2 ). Angad (PW. 6) is also the maternal uncle of Shriram (PW. 1), and Ramswaroop (PW 4) is a cousin of the former. Thus, very partisan witnesses have been brought forth in support of the prosecution. None of these eye-witnesses have chosen to tell us as to why and for what reason did the incident take place. There has been no bad blood between the parties. Nor any previous quarrel is reported to have taken place between them on any land dispute.

(3.) THE prosecution witnesses do not appear to have told the truth about the incident when they narrated the incident in the Court, as the first information report, ext. P-1, by Shriram (PW 1.), and their police case-diary statements, Exts. D-2 to D-5, speak altogether a different story. This variation has come by deliberation and improvement so as to deny to the appellants the right of self-defence. The veracity of the first information report (Ext. P-1) has been seriously challenged and is said to be ante-dated. We shall deal with these matters in detail hereafter.