- (1.) Twelve persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'), were convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. and three years for the rest of the offences. They preferred three appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment the appeals were dealt with together and conviction and sentence in respect of Tulua (A-1), Babulal (A-2), Mahesh (A-6), Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10), Netram (A-11) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12) were maintained. Sentences of Tulua (A-1), Babulal (A-2) and Netram (A-11) were reduced to one year and two years respectively for offences relatable to Ss. 147 and 148 respectively. The conviction in respect of Uttam Singh (A-3), Phool Singh (A-4), Sobran Singh (A-5), ant (A-7) and Sarman Singh (A-8) was set aside. Tulua, Babulal and Netram (A-1, A-2 and A-11 respectively) were acquitted of the offence relatable to S. 148. They were convicted of the offence punishable under S. 147, I.P.C. while the convictions of Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12) under S. 148, I.P.C. were maintained with modified sentences. The said judgment is impugned in these appeals.
(2.) Prosecution version in a nutshell leaving out unnecessary details is as follows : Mahila Raj Kunwar (P.W. 20) was previously the wife of accused-Babulal (A-2). This marriage was performed while she was a minor. Since the character and reputation of Babulal was not without blemish and he was a habitual drunkard and used to gamble and had illicit relations with ladies, there was tension in the relationship between Raj Kunwar and Babulal. When the former tried to reform the latter and requested him to follow the correct path in life, she was beaten and was thrown out of his house in December, 1985. Thereafter, she started living in the house of her father. According to the customs prevalent she was remarried on 3rd March, 1986 with Chhatar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). This led to hostility and Babulal became inimical to deceased. He tried to arouse the communal and caste feelings. On the date of occurrence i.e. 9th March, 1986 while deceased was drawing water from his well all the accused persons reached there. Accused-Jagdish, Sarman and Kasiram were armed with a Luhangi each. Accused Sabo was armed with a gun, accused-Mahesh was armed with a knife and accused-Pappu was armed with a hockey stick. Accused-Sobran, Kishan Lal and Phoola were also each armed with Luhangi. In addition, accused-Netram, Tulua and Babu were holding lathis in their hands. After reaching the place where deceased was standing accused-Jagdish caught hold of him and other accused persons with common intention to cause his death inflicted injuries by respective weapons. Though the deceased cried for help no one immediately came to save him. However, when his mother (P.W. 2) reached near him, all the accused persons left the place. The deceased along with his mother (P.W. 2) and Pran Singh (P.W. 1) went to the Police Chowk, Magrauni and lodged a First Information Report regarding the incident with the then Station In-charge. Pran Singh (P.W. 1) had gone to the place on hearing from Brijesh Kumar (P.W. 11). When report was lodged Shiv Baksh Singh (P.W. 16) sent the deceased for medical examination where Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (P.W. 19) conducted medical examination. He found nearly 17 injuries on his body. There were four internal injuries also. Most of them were inflicted with sharp edged weapons whereas some were caused by hard and blunt weapons. The deceased was referred to the District Hospital, Shiv Puri for better treatment. Subsequently, the deceased breathed his last at the Primary Centre itself and could not be taken to the referred hospital. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed and the accused persons faced trial. They claimed innocence and false implication.
(3.) Though the trial Court did not place much reliance on the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses, yet placed implicit reliance on evidence of the deceased which was given before the police by way of an information which formed the First Information Report and was treated as a dying declaration. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and in respect of some of the accused there was confirmation of the conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the appeal accused-Tulua has died and by order dated 5-6-2003 it was directed that the appeal has abated so far as he is concerned.;