- (1.) SEVEN accused were charged under S. 302 read with S. 149 and Ss. 147 and 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the murder of one Mohan Lal Khatri in the village of Potlad, Indore district on 4/11/1994 (the day following Diwali) at about 11.00 a.m. The Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, convicted all the seven accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The High Court on appeal by the accused, acquitted all of them. Hence, the State preferred the present appeal. We are informed that the 7th accused Lalji (7th respondent herein) died during the pendency of the appeal.
(2.) PW 1 Singaram, the brother of the deceased lodged a report purportedly at 1420 hrs on 4/11/1994 stating that while he was irrigating his fields he heard the cries from his brother Mohan Lal from the nearby field. Mohan Lal was driving the tractor on his field at that time. When he rushed to the spot, he found the seven accused armed with iron rods, spades and axes, assaulting his brother Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal sustained injuries on the head, arms and legs. He also stated that PW 4 and PW 5 who are said to be farm workers also saw the incident. The motive was stated to be a dispute over purchase of the land. He further stated that the dead body was taken by bullock cart to the hospital at Sanwel and by the time they reached the hospital, Mohan Lai was dead. Thereafter, he came to the police station to give the report. The post-mortem report revealed as many as 15 incised injuries, some of which were found on the vital parts. The investigating officer (PW 12) inspected the scene of offence and drew up a rough sketch of the spot and the adjacent fields. The site plan which was got prepared by PW 9 is also on record and it is marked as Ext. P-8. The investigating officer recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 5 either on the same day or on the next day though PW 5 stated that their statements were recorded three days later. The accused were arrested two days later i.e. on 6/11/1994 and pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by them, the weapons used were recovered from the places at which they were concealed.
(3.) FIVE eyewitnesses were examined in support of the prosecution apart from the informant, PW 1. PW 2 and PW 3 are the children of the deceased aged about 12 years and 14 years respectively. PW 4 and PW 5 are the farm workers who are said to be attending to the work at the field of the deceased or the nearby fields. The High Court was not inclined to place reliance on the eyewitnesses' account. The High Court observed that after having gone through their evidence it was satisfied that the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 did not inspire confidence and they were got up witnesses to support the story which was ex facie untrue.;