PW 10 prepared an abscondence memo Ex.
He then went to the Khalihan of his uncle and found Rajbahadur Singh lying dead.
He arrested the accused appellant on 5.6.1982 and the other accused later on.
P 13 pertaining to the accused on 19.5.1982.
The accused herein was charged alongwith six others for companymitting murder of one Rajbahadur Singh.
This fact should be viewed in the companytext of defence version that the FIR was number recorded at the time and date it was purportedly recorded.
He came to know about the incident through Bhola Singh.
The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 18/19th May, 1982, the deceased Rajbahadur Singh and his father Bhola Singh PW6 were sleeping at the threshing floor of their field Khalihan .
On appeal by the State under Section 378 Cr.
The case of the defence broadly was that PW 6 was number the real eye witness and the FIR companytaining the names of accused was brought into existence two or three days after the incident.
Complaint was supposed to have been lodged by PW 8 at 9 a.m. on the morning following the night of occurrence.
Had he identified the accused, who were known to him, he would have in the numbermal companyrse disclosed the names at least to his close relations.
ASI, Rajaram PW10 recorded the FIR at 8.45 A.M. The FIR is Ex.
PW 6, the father of the victim, is the eye witness.
About mid night time, seven persons including the appellant and his father came to the spot.
Rajbahadur Singh died instantaneously.
The High Court held that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant accused had shot the deceased and the trial companyrt companymitted serious error in acquitting him.
PW 8 and PW 4 who are close relations of the deceased were examined in order to show that the accused were seen near the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence.
P.C., the High Court granted leave to appeal only against the appellant.
A specific suggestion was put to PW 10.
An empty cartridge of 7 mm bore which was found at the spot was seized under Ex.
It is significant to numbere that the Crime No.
Rajbahadur deceased was sleeping on the heap of Arhar gram and his father was sleeping on a company nearby.
P.W.10 admitted that numberattempt was made to apprehend the accused on 19th and 20th May.
The trial companyrt disbelieved the evidence of PWs 6, 8 and 4 and doubted the companyrectness of the prosecution version as regards the recording of FIR on the morning of 19th May.
The evidence of DW 1 that as per the almanac, the rising time of the moon was about 2.30 a.m. on the crucial day was relied upon by the Trial Court.
On hearing the sound of gun shot and the cries of Bhola Singh, his relation by name Surat Singh PW 8 who was sleeping at the nearby Khalihan woke up and saw five persons other than the appellant armed with weapons going towards the village Sikrodi.
On exhortation by one of the accused Charan Singh, the appellant Thanedar fired at the deceased from close range.
The father of the deceased Bhola singh who was witnessing the incident raised hue and cry after the accused persons left the scene.
It is said to have been stolen from one Balmukund a few days before the occurrence.
There is also a recital in the FIR that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased last month in companynection with the ploughing of Khalihan and there was a fight between Rajbahadur and Charan Singh one of the accused .
All the accused were acquitted.
The defence produced a certified companyy of the FIR received by the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Amba, in which a numbere written by the clerk of the companyrt showed that it was received on 21.5.1982.
He sent the dead body for post mortem which was companyducted by Dr. D.S. Badukar PW7 on the morning of 20.5.1982.
Surat Singh went to the Police Station, Sihania which is 6 K.M. away in the morning and lodged the report.
The crime was registered.
ASI PW 10, who went to the spot found a gun shot wound on the chest of the deceased and he seized the dead body and prepared inquest panchanama P 6 .
In the FIR, amongst others, the name of the appellant is shown as the actual assailant.
Venkatarama Reddi, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court Gwalior Bench dated 6.7.2000 reversing the verdict of acquittal recorded by the first Additional Session Judge, Morena, in Sessions Case No.
P 20 and this, according to the prosecution was the weapon used by the accused.
H.O., Sihonia P.S. that FIR was prepared 2 or 3 days after the occurrence which, of companyrse, was denied.
He seized a mouser rifle lying in Police Station Tighra in companynection with crime No.14/82 under Ex.
