STATE OF M.P. Vs. GHASITA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -state has preferred this appeal under section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C 1973, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.1992 passed by Fourth ASJ Chhatarpur in ST no. 6 of 1991 whereby, acquitting respondents -accused from the charge under section 302 in alternative 302 read with section 34,325,323 in alternative 325 read with section 34 and 323 read with section 34 of IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that in village Atokoha, there is agricultural land in the name of Baba wale khet and for this agricultural land, deceased Phitua and respondents accused were having certain civil dispute. It is alleged that on the date of incident, i.e. on 04.11.1990 deceased Phitua and other witnesses namely Pyaribai, Ratiram, Natthu and Munni went to the aforesaid disputed land and tried to plough the land concerned. At that time, respondent -accused Ghasita and Jagat came there armed with lathi and objected ploughing of the aforesaid field as they were in possession of the aforesaid land. When deceased Phitua and other witnesses refused to go out from the field, at that time, quarrel took place. It is alleged that deceased Phitua and other witnesses had caused injuries to Ghasita and Jagat, the respondents and in reply, both the respondents also caused injuries to deceased Phitua and others. In this quarrel, both the parties admittedly sustained injuries. Due to the injury sustained on the head, deceased Phitua died. FIR was lodged at police station Laundi distt. Chhatarpur on which basis, police registered this case under section 302/34 of IPC. Police reached on the spot, prepared inquest panchnama of the dead body of the deceased Phitua and issued memo for Postmortem examination of the dead body. The medical officer Civil Hospital Laundi Dr. D.D. Chaursia performed Postmortem of the dead body of deceased Phitua and found various antemortem injuries and on internal examination, found fracture of frontal bone and opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhage which is the result of the injuries sustained on the head by the deceased and which is the ultimate result of his death and proved the report Ex.P/16. He also examined other injured witnesses namely Pyari Bai wife of Phitua who sustained 8 injuries for which proved report Ex.P/12, also examined second injured Natthu S/o Phitua and found five injuries for which report Ex.P.14 has been proved, similarly, also examined injured Ratiram S/o Phitua and found three injuries on his body for which proved report Ex.P/15. All the injuries sustained by the injured were caused by some hard and blunt object.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the accused Ghasita has also lodged FIR of the incident, wherein, the police also sent him for medical examination. The same doctor DD Chaursia (PW8) examined respondent accused Ghasita S/o Harprasad and found 8 injuries out of which, one was on the left parietal region for which, proved report Ex.D/6. Thereafter, he also examined second respondent -accused Jagat S/o Ghasita and found six injuries out of which, four injuries are on the left and right parietal region on the head, for which, he also proved report Ex.D/7.