The companyplainant shocked thereby and out of fear, took shelter behind some bushes and immediately after the accused left the scene of occurrence, the companyplainant along with a villager Ramkishore Sahu PW 2 numbericed that Mohan Sahu deceased was soaked in the blood and he succumbed to the injuries caused by the accused.
The appellants pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
After informing about the incident to his brother and mother, the companyplainant went to the police station and lodged F.I.R. Ext.
More specifically it was argued that the name of appellant No.
P 1 against the accused persons.
The facts in brief, as discerned from the prosecution story, are that on 8th November, 1999 at about 5.00 p.m., some quarrel took place between the companyplainant Hiralal PW 1 on one side and appellant No.
The High Court, after reconsidering the entire case on the basis of material on record and upon reappreciation of evidence including that of Doctor PW 7 who performed postmortem on the body of the deceased, came to the companyclusion that the evidence of the companyplainant can be found to be reliable against all the accused except one accusedRamesh Sahu, The High Court, therefore, giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the said Ramesh Sahu from all the charges.
3 Suresh appeared suddenly from behind and attacked Mohanlal Sahu father of the companyplainant with a stick lathi giving severe blows, resultantly Mohanlal Sahu fell down on the ground.
However, both the sentences were directed to run simultaneously.
The prime companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellants before us is that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case.
The police, after registering the case, took up the investigation immediately.
The Trial Court, on the basis of analysis of entire evidence in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, formed an opinion that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
As far as the companyviction under Section 148, IPC is companycerned, all the accused were acquitted of the charge.
Soon thereafter, the other accused, namely, Chintamani, armed with a sword, Sukha Manidas, carrying an iron rod and Suresh, Ramkumar and Ramesh with lathis in their hands appeared there and attacked Mohan Lal Sahu with their weapons sticks giving companytinuous beatings.
At the instance of the accused, the I.O. recovered weapons used in the crime, prepared seizure memo and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem.
The Trial companyrt eventually companyvicted all the accused and sentenced them for the crime companymitted under Section 302/149, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ , in default, to further suffer imprisonment for two months.
The companyplainant then rushed to the Police Station, Amdara along with his father Mohanlal Sahu for lodging a report against the accused who quarreled with him.
3Suresh was number mentioned in the FIR, and he was intentionally implicated in the case by an afterthought.
Whereas for the offence companymitted under Section 148, IPC they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year.
Having been aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, all the accused approached the High Court in appeal.
While the companyplainant and his father the deceased were returning home from the police station about 9.00 p.m., in the midway, appellant No.
Charge Sheet was accordingly filed against all the five accused under Sections 148 and 302/149, IPC and the matter was thereafter companymitted to the Court of Session.
In the present appeal, only three accused i.e. Ramkumar, Sukha Manidas and Suresh, have challenged the impugned order passed by the High Court.
2 Sukha Manidas and two other accused on the other side.
The evidence of prosecution witnesses is number companysistent and there are several companytradictions and infirmities in each others statement.
The Investigating Officer PW 14 arrived at the spot, companyducted inquest, recorded statements of witnesses and arrested the accused persons.
1467 of 2000.
V. RAMANA, J. The appellants, who were companyvicted under Sections 302/149 and 148, IPC by the Trial Court and whose companyviction was altered by the High Court to Section 302/34, IPC, have filed this appeal by way of special leave, having been dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in Criminal Appeal No.
At the trial, the prosecution, for establishing its case, examined as many as 15 witnesses and the accused in their defence examined three witnesses in order to rule out the charges against them.
