HALLU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eighteen persons were put up for trial before the First Additional Session Judge, Durg (M. P.) for offences arising out of the murder of two persons Jagdeo and Padum. The learned Judge acquitted them of all the charges but that order was partly set aside by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which confirmed the acquittal of eight persons and convicted the remaining ten under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court under which a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed of the appellants.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on the afternoon of May 9, 1966, a group of about 18 persons including the appellants dragged Jagdeo and Padum from their houses and attacked them with lathis, spears and axes. In 1965 Jugdeo and Padum were prosecuted along with 2 others for committing the murder of one Daulatram, the Sarpanch of the village. That case ended in acquittal and it is alleged that Judgeo and Padum were done to death by the appellants who felt especially aggrieved by the murder of the Sarpanch.

(3.) Since the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court it is of primary importance to appreciate and understand the approach of the Sessions Court to the evidence in the case and its conclusions thereon. These briefly are the structural halmarks of the Sessions Court's judgment:(1) In rioting cases discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence but the duty of the court is to have regard to the broad probabilities of the case; (2) In a factious village independent witnesses are unwilling to come forward and therefore the testimony of eyewitnesses who are interested in the deceased cannot be discarded merely for the reason that they are so interested provided of course the presence of the witnesses is proved; (3) The First Information Report does not constitute substantive evidence in the case and the mere circumstance that there are certain omission in it will not justify the case being disbelieved.