SARMAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - There are six appellants in this appeal. They were tried and convicted for offence punishable under S. 302 read with S. 149 and S. 147, IPC. On the last count no sentence was awarded. On the first count each one of them was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the High Court.

(2.) The prosecution case is that all the appellants were of Baiswara Community and they were all residents of village Regarh which is near to the outer signal of railway station Bandhwapara. The deceased Somali also belonged to the same village. According to prosecution one Chhutwa of Regarh village died in suspicious circumstances. P.W. 8 sent information of his death but the present accused did not permit the person to go to the police station. Consequently no further proceedings could be taken. The deceased used to say that these persons were responsible for the death of Chhutwa because of enmity between them.

(3.) Coming to the present occurrence on 10-8-76 at 8-30 p.m. all of them formed into unlawful assembly and surrounded and assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries. It is stated that all of them were found with lathies. The dead body was found lying near the house of PW. 12. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. An inquest was also held. Dr. Mishra P.W. 19 conducted the post-mortem report. He found several injuries on the dead body. The prosecution examined several witnesses including P.Ws. 2, 12 and 17. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court relied on the evidence of PWs. 2 and 12 and held that the prosecution established that these appellants had a common object to commit murder and therefore they surrounded and inflicted injuries on the deceased. The High Court affirmed the same. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of PWs 2 and 12 is not reliable particularly when P.W. 12 stated that he suffers from night blindness and in these circumstances the evidence of P.W. 2 alone cannot be accepted and benefit of doubt goes to the appellants.