KASHIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and six other persons stood prosecuted for offences under sections 147, 148,302 read with 149 and 307/149. They were acquitted by the Additional District Judge. Narisinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh (Byara), M.P. State. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the acquittal of five persons but reversed the judgment of the trial Judge with reference to the appellant and another by name Ram Singh. The appellant was convicted for offences under sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302 and imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - u/s 324. We are not concerned with the other accused as he has not come to this Court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is shortly as follows: There was prior enmity between the accused persons on the one side and Gorelal and others on the other. The accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and on 29.12.86 at about 2 p.m. committed the murder of Gorelal in the jungle of Padiliya Khadi. Ram Singh and the appellant shot the deceased with a gun. They caused gun shot injuries to Nanakram, Deochand, Beni Singh and Ramesh in the attempt to murder them. Nanakram became unconscious. Sewa Ram (PW 1) was working in his field when he saw a bullock cart coming from forest side. On hearing sounds of screaming and wailing, he went to the cart and found the dead body of Gorelal. He was informed by Hiralal s/o Ramrata that the appellant, his brother Bhaowaria, Armitlal, Daryhao Singh, Kailash, Ram Singh and Pappu killed Gorelal in Chhapra and that Ramsingh and the appellant fired guns at Gorelal. He was also infonned that the others sustained bullet -injuries. Thereafter Sevaram went to the Police Station at Kotra and reported the matter at 5.30 p.m., the same day. The report was recorded. J.S. Tomar (PW 19), SHO registered offences under sections 147, 148,302,307 read with 149 vide Crime No. 148/86.

(3.) THE appellant's counsel made the following submissions : - - The FIR was not lodged on the same day but it was done only on the next day. The appellant has proved alibi and he was not at the place of occurrence. No doctor has been examined to prove the alleged injuries of eye witnesses. Nor have they produced any medical certificate. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is full of discrepancies. The driver of the tractor recovered by the prosecution was not examined by it, and he has been examined by the defence. His evidence corroborated by the damage on the tractor proves conclusively the defence version. The judgment of the High Court is perfunctory and unsustainable.