RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.6.2000 * Decision reproduced in toto. passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Sessions Trial No. 272/1990, whereby held both the appellants and co-appellant Ajab Singh (who died during pendency of this appeal) guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 part I read with section 34 and 326 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to ten years RI with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; and three years RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Appellant Ramniwas has also been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC and sentenced to three months RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- and appellant Mahavir Singh has been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-. All the four sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief stated the facts of the case are, on 3.11.1990 at village Gadora some hot talk took place in between the appellant Ramniwas and the injured/ complainant Gangaram with regard to the right of way of bullock cart on the field of Ramniwas. Thereafter, on 4.11.1990 when the complainant Gangaram was coming to Morena from Gadora on a bicycle, at that time it is alleged that appellant/ accused Ramniwas came there armed with a lathi and started beating the complainant Gangaram by means of lathi and caused two injuries on the legs of Gangaram. On hearing the cry of complainant Gangaram, his father Shrikrishna (deceased) came there to intervene in the incident, at that time it is furthe alleged that co-accused/appellant No. 2 Mahavir Singh armed with an iron rod came there and caused an injury by means of iron rod on the head of deceased Shrikrishna, by which he sustained injury on the head and fell down. Thereafter, the other co-accused Ajab Singh and Jairam also caused injuries to deceased Shrikrishna by means of lathi. Thereafter, one Parasram, Samunder Singh, Mehtab and Gabbar Singh also came there to intervene in the incident then appellant/ accused Mahavir Singh had also caused injuries to Parasram by means of iron rod, Ajab Singh, Ramniwas and Jairam had also caused injuries to Gabbar by means of lathi, Mahavir Singh/appellant had also caused injury to Mehtab by means of iron rod and Ajab Singh had also caused injury to Samunder Singh by means of lathi. Thereafter, witnesses Badan Singh and Gambhir Singh came there. On seeing them the accused persons ran away from the spot. The matter has been reported by the injured Gangaram at the police station Saraichhola, on which basis the police had registered the case under section 307,34 IPC; sent the injured/complainant Gangaram and other injured persons for medical examination to the Government Hospital. On examination the concerning doctor found the injured Shrikrishna dead. An inquest panchnama had also been prepared by the Investigating Officer and a requisition for post-mortem examination has been issued. The other injured Parasram, Gabbar Singh, Mehtab and Samunder Singh had also been examined by the concerning doctor, who proved the injury reports Exts. P/18, P/21, P/27, P/29 and P/33. In the same incident the appellants/accused Ajab Singh (since dead), Mahavir Singh, Ramniwas and Jairam also sustained injuries and the injury reports are proved as Exts. D/6, D/11, D/13 and D/1 8 by the examining doctor. Post-mortem of the dead body of Shrikrishna had been performed by Dr. V.K. Deewan (PW 6) who proved the post-mortem report Ex. P/15. During investigaion the accused persons had been arrested, the weapons used by them in this incident had also been seized by the Investigating Officer, the spot map had also been prepared and after due investigation the charge sheet has been filed.

(3.) All the appellants/accused persons abjured the guilt and their defence is of false implication in this case. The learned trial Court after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record by the impugned judgment acquitted the appellants from the charge under section 302 IPC but held them guilty for the offence under section 304 part I of IPC and also under section 326 read with sections 34,324 and 323 of IPC and sentenced them as stated herein above; aggrieved by which the appellants have preferred this appeal.