SHANKARLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under S. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 28-1-2000 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No. 281/1998, whereby appellant Shankarlal has been convicted under S.148 and S.302 read with S.149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for two years R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for three months. Rest of the appellants Dharamraj, Devideen, Raghunath, Sanju and Virendra have been convicted under S.147 and S.302 read with S.149 of IPC and sentenced for one year R.I. and life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for three months. Appellants Devideen and Raghunath have further been convicted under S.323 of IPC and sentenced for three months R.I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 4-4-1998 at 8:15 PM Ramkali Bai wife of Mangal Prasad Basor lodged FIR at Police Station Ghamapur that at 7:30 PM she was sitting in her house along with her husband Mangal Prasad and daughter Pramila. At that time Shankar Basor came there and abused for which her husband objected by saying that he should not use such filthy language. Shankar went to his house and returned with other accused persons. He was armed with farsa, Phoolchand with ballam, Dharmraj, Devideen, Raghunath, Sanju and Virendra with lathis. They started giving beating to her husband Mangal and were abusing. At the same time her son Bablu came. Ramkali Bai, Bablu and Pramila tried to intervene, but they caused injuries to her and Bablu. Laxmibai, Pramila and Sujeet have witnessed the incident. On this information an offence under S.147, S.148, S.149, S.294, S.307 of IPC was registered against the appellants, but after sometime Mangal died. Panchnama of dead body was prepared. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. A. K. Yadu (PW 7). According to his opinion, the death was due to the head injury. The death was homicidal in nature. The head injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Thereafter offence under S.302, IPC was added. Bablu was also medically examined and injuries were found on his person. Spot map was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded under S.161, Cr. P.C. The disclosure statements of appellants under S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act were recorded. In pursuance thereof weapons of offence were seized from them. Country and blood stained soil was seized from the spot. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who committed this case to the Sessions Court for trial.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are several contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. No independent witnesses have supported the prosecution story and only interested witnesses have deposed against them. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal.