- (1.)This is an appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of the respondents and their four companions, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, as recorded on 12.10.1992 in S.T. No.13/92 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panna.
(2.)It is relevant to note that vide order dated 01.02.1993, leave to appeal was refused in respect of the other four co-accused namely Parshottam, Uma, Manga and Gopi arraigned in the charge-sheet as the accused nos. 2, 7, 8 and 11 (hereinafter referred to as A2, A7, A8 and A11 respectively). Further, the appeal, so far as it relates to respondent/accused no.9 namely Kripal @ Ramkripal (for short 'A9'), has abated consequent to his death during pendency thereof. As such, we are required to examine merits of the judgment of not guilty as passed in favour of the other 11 accused/respondents namely, Nandi, Anandi Lal, Janki, Fundar, Rajaram, Jeevan, Ramsut, Jayram, Ram Manohar, Tirath and Premlal (hereinafter referred to as A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, A10, A12, A13, A14, A15 and A16 respectively).
(3.)The prosecution case may, briefly, be stated as under:
(i) There existed a long-standing enmity between the complaint party and the accused party. Prior to the incident in question, members of both the parties had faced a series of criminal prosecution at the instance of the rival group. The most significant of the earlier prosecutions, as highlighted in Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the impugned judgment, related to murder of one Shyam Kotwar, one of the supporters of the respondents, involving Radhe (PW3) as one of the accused.

(ii) In the election to Gram Panchayat Harira held in the year 1986, Jagmohan (PW7), who enjoyed support of the complainant party, defeated the erstwhile Sarpanch A8. This further deepened the group rivalry.

(iii) On 30.8.1991, a case under Sections 294, 323, 342 of the IPC was registered against A1, A4 and A6 on the basis of report lodged by Paanbai as to her alleged wrongful confinement and beating. In this report, it was also alleged that when Kisiya (PW17), Jethani (sister-in-law) of Paanbai, came forward to intervene; she was also struck with a pharsa by A1. Admittedly, Ramcharan (PW1) accompanied Paanbai and Kisiya up to the police station for getting the report lodged against these respondents.

(iv) Only 3 days thereafter i.e. on 03.09.1991 at about 5.00 p.m. in village Harira, Ishwardeen (since deceased) was returning home from Haar (field) along with his younger brother Radhe (PW3), who was goading the bullock along with Darbari (PW2), Brajbhushan @ Bandi (PW4) and Shyam Sundar (PW5). Complainant Ramcharan (PW1), the father of Ishwardeen and Radhe (PW3), was also following them.

(v) When Ishwardeen reached near the huge mango tree in the garden of Ahari, all the 16 accused persons came together and surrounded him. Each one of A1 and A11 was armed with a 12-bore single barrel gun; A6 was equipped with a Katta (country made pistol); A3 was carrying a Pharsa; A8 was carrying a Bhartal Bandook (muzzle loading gun); whereas his son A15 was armed with a 135 bore gun, and all the other 10 accused were carrying lathies. The joint attack started with firing of a shot at Ishwardeen by A6 that hit his right thigh. At the same time, A1 fired a shot at Radhe that went past his neck. Both Ishwardeen and Radhe, after sustaining gun shot injuries, immediately fell down. At this point of time, A3 dealt a pharsa blow at the neck of Radhe and thereafter, struck at the head, neck and back of Ishwardeen repeatedly with the same weapon. The other accused assaulted both Ishwardeen and Radhe with their respective lathies. Ishwardeen died instantaneously but Radhe could survive even after sustaining serious injuries.

(vi) Being frightened, the eyewitness to the incident namely Ramcharan (PW1), Darbari, (PW2) Brajbhushan (PW4), Shyam Sundar (PW5) and Shriram (PW6) ran away. It was on the report lodged by Ramcharan that a case under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC was registered against the respondents and their five companions.

(vii) After inquest proceedings, dead body of Ishwardeen was sent for postmortem. The autopsy surgeon Dr. S.K. Tripathi (PW11) opined that the cause of Iswardeen's death was shock due to head injury and multiple injuries on his body. He also preserved pieces of metal found in the body, blood stained Silver Tabiz (locket), bracelet, Kurtha, underwear and Lungi worn by the deceased for forensic examination. Injured Radhe was immediately sent to the hospital for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. O.P. More (PW12), who after noting injuries, advised X-ray examination of skull and thoracic spine. In the radiological examination, thus suggested, Dr.G.P.Singh (PW9) found a depressed fracture on the posterior part of Radhe's skull.

(viii) During investigation, ordinary and blood stained soil seized from the spots, where Ishwardeen was found dead and his brother Radhe (PW3) was lying in an injured condition, along with nylon shoes and clothes of Radhe and Ishwardeen. All the sixteen accused were apprehended and at their instance respective weapons were recovered. Blood stained Kurtha of A4, blood stained Lungi of A3 and blood stained shirt of A6 were also seized. All the articles along with weapons of offence were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination. As per the report (Ex.P-58), the Asstt. Chemical Examiner found that except ordinary soil seized from both the spots and lathies recovered from A2, A9, A10 A13, A14, A16, all the exhibits contained bloodstains. He, therefore, forwarded the exhibits containing bloodstains to the Serologist for further examination but no report of the Serologist could be produced during trial.

(ix) After completing the investigation and obtaining DM's sanction to prosecute A6 for the offence under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, charge-sheet was submitted against all the respondents and their companions in the Court of JMFC, Panna who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.