NANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated 9-11-1998, passed by learned II additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, (M. P.) in s. T. No. 258/90 whereby convicted the appellants No. 1 to 6 under Section 396 of the ipc and sentence to R. I. for life and also appellant Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 27 (6)of the Arms Act and sentence to R. I. for seven years.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 24-4-1989, at 8. 30 p. m. complainant Kilan (P. W. 3), his son Ramsingh (P. W. 7) Versingh, daughter deceased Hajari and wife Noorlibai were sitting inside their hut after taking night meal. They overheard sound of firing, because of which, they came out from the hut and saw that the huts of inhabitants of that locality named Jugadiya, Kalia, kishaniya, Dursingh, Nayakada, Bhangada, kutriya, and Ditaliya Chamar were burning and 8 to 10 persons were coming towards their hut. They had seen in the light of fire those 8 to 10 persons. The complainant kilan (P. W. 3) went inside his hut, suddenly he heard a sound of firing coming from his courtyard. Thereafter, all the accused persons total eight in number, having guns, bows and arrows, forcibly entered inside his hut. The appellant No. 1 Nansingh was hav ing bows and arrows as well as burning torch (Mashaal) and was trying to set fire to the hut which was objected by the complainant. At that moment, appellant No. 4 banadiya raised gun to fire, but the barrel of the gun was pushed aside by the complainant, because of which, the bullet did not hit him and hit to the wooden log of the hut. The daughter of complainant Kilan deceased hajari and wife Noorlibai requested the appellants not to set fire their hut and also not to assault them, at which, appellant no. 3 Munatiya demanded Rs. 10. 000/-for not doing so. Deceased Hajari because of fear gave them a silver ring (Tagli) after taking out from her neck to Munatiya. Appellant Munatiya exhorted appellant Nandla for shooting arrow and Nandla shot an arrow causing injury on the chest of deceased hajari, who died after sometime on the spot. The appellant Vagoo also shot an arrow causing injury to Ramsingh on his back. Appellant Vestiya fired gun but same did not hit to anybody. After commission of 'loot' with murder, the appellants fled away. On the next day, that is, 25-4-1989, ASI shyamlalsingh Chouhan (P. W. 5) recorded 'dehati Nalishi' (Ex. P/2) at the instance of complainant Kilan (P. W. 3) in village sumaniyawat. The Investigating Officer prepared the spot map as well as the inquest report of the dead body of deceased Hajari and sent the same for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. K. C. Gupta (P. W. 9 ). The post-mortem report is ex. P/15. The deceased suffered only one injury caused by an arrow shot and one simple contusion. Ramsingh (P. W. 7) was also medically examined, his M. L. C. report is (Ex. P/14 ). He sustained one injury on his back side caused by an arrow shot. Though during the course of investigation, memorandum statements of the accused persons were recorded, but in pursuance thereof, property of the dacbity silver ring; (Tagli) was not seized. From the possession1 of appellant Munatiya, a twelve bore gun without licence and from Vestiya, a muzzle loading gun was seized. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for commission of offence under Sections 436, 396 and 397 of the IPC and also under S. 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) THE appellants denied the charges and submitted in their defence that they were falsely implicated because of enmity. In cross-examination of the eye-witnesses, suggestion was given that on the same day of the incident, "nathu" a village member was murdered by the complainant party, in which, Desiya son of complainant Kilan was arrested and the accused persons appeared as witness against Desiya, they have concocted a false case against him.