BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.1327/1995 has been filed by appellants Angad and Nepal and Criminal Appeal No.1272/1995 has been filed by appellants Dallu, Angad, Nepal and Mangu being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 5.8.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.40/93 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows :-

(2.) In brief the prosecution story is that on 6.1.1993 in village Rosera Distric Damoh at about 7.00 am Ghaflu and his son Bharat were going to their field for irrigating the agriculture field. At that time, electricity went off hence they were sitting near their pump set waiting for the electric current. At about 9.00 am Angad Lodhi, Nepal Singh, Prakash Pateria, Mangu, Ujju Lodhi, Sanju Lodhi, Dallu, Bahadur, Karodi, Jhallu and Hannu came there. They were armed with lathi, ballam and farsa and started beating Ghaflu and his son Bharat. Ghaflu sustained some fatal injuries on his chest. Bharat also sustained injuries on head and other parts of body also. FIR to the incident was lodged by Bharat at Police Station, Hata against the appellants and other persons. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the concerned court under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of IPC.

(3.) After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of IPC against the appellants. They abjured guilt and pleaded they have been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant party with the aid of police. After considering the entire prosecution evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted Jhallu, Karodi, Sanju, Ujju and Hannu, however appellants were found guilty for committing the aforesaid offence with the deceased Gaflu and Bharat, therefore, they have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 148, 324/149, 302/149 and 302 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellants challenged the said judgment of the trial Court on the grounds that there are contradictory evidence on record. The facts of the first information report also have not been corroborated by statements of prosecution witnesses. All the witnesses are related and interested witnesses and their evidence is not duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.