STATE OF M P Vs. RAGHUVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is State Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30. 9. 1997 for the offences under Sections 147/302 and 149/302 passed by first Additional Sessions judge, Guna in S. T. No. 358/ 96.

(2.) AS per prosecution story on 2. 9. 1996 in the morning deceased Mathuralal was going along with his son Hardayal from his village to Guna. They had to get the bus at village Bhonra at about 7 a. m. When they both reached near culvert of river at village bhonra; Sitaram, who was carrying Farsi in his hand; Dataram, who was carrying iron object; Raghuveer, Jagdish and Pappu carrying lath is; Pothi, Radhyshyam and Giriraj carrying stones in their hands and Santosh, who was bare handed, came to them and said that; "aaj In Bap-Bete ki Peshi Kara do. " Seeing them Hardayal ran way from the spot and Mathuralal, who was an old aged person, could not run away. Santosh caught-hold the hand of Mathuralal, thereafter Sitaram gave Farsi blow on his head, which was obstructed by Mathuralal. On account of this his both the hands became injured. Rambabu gave iron blow from the blunt side on his both the legs, by which maturalal fell down on the earth. Pothi and jagdish assaulted by lathis. Mathuralal was carrying for help, at that time Narayanlal sahu came on the spot. Seeing him all the accused ran away. Injured Mathuralal himself lodged the report at Police Station dharnawada, which was registered as 'dehati Nalisi' and thereafter the crime was registered at P. S. Chowki Jhagar. The injured was referred for medical examination and on the next day the statement of mathuralal was recorded. On 5. 9. 1996 at 12. 15 p. m. , Mathuralal died in the hospital. His dead body was referred for post-mortem and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) DURING trial, all the respondents abjured their guilt. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Trial Court found that though the deceased received as many as 8 injuries, out of which injuries Nos, 4 and 5 are lacerated wounds, one was contusion and other were abrasion, but none of the witnesses has supported the prosecution story. Hardayal (P. W. 8) son of the deceased, has also not supported the prosecution story and the Court has found that though the F. I. R. was lodged by the deceased himself, his statement was also recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and he survived for three days, but his dying declaration was not recorded neither by the Executive magistrate nor by the doctor and found that the evidence of the Investigating Officer rakesh Kumar Chhari (PW13), who had recorded the statement of the deceased, does not Inspire confidence, as he has stated that when he was recording the statement of the deceased his son Hardayal (P. W. 8) was present in the hospital and was crying. The deceased was speaking but in the intervening period also getting unconsciousness and son Hardayal (P. W. 8) was with his father. Considering the statement of Hardayal (P. W. 8), trial Court found that the statement of Investigating Officer (PW13) is not reliable at all and found that prosecution has failed to prove its case by producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubts and acquitted the respondents, against which the State has preferred this appeal after obtaining leave from this Court.