The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30th November, 1994 acquitted the appellant from the alleged offences mainly on the ground that there are companytradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to that of medical evidence, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt formation of unlawful assembly with a motive of companymitting murder of the deceased and also failed to establish that the bullet had been fired with the firearm seized from the appellant.
Learned companynsel further urged that as per the site plan prepared by the Investigation Officer and also as per the medical evidence, the deceased Jagannath Singh was standing when he was shot.
Dilip Singh Yadav PW 13 prepared inquest memo and Dr. K. Upadhyay P.W. 12 companyducted autopsy on the dead body.
Consequently, statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr.
Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Trial Court, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court claiming that the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse and illegal inasmuch as it did number appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective and ignored the evidence of the eyewitnesses.
In the background of this factual matrix, learned companynsel for the appellant has advanced his arguments that since the appellant and victim parties have prior enmity over some pending criminal cases, the family members of the deceased, i.e., Gambhir Singh PW 7 , Shanti Devi PW 8 , Bir Singh PW 11 in companynivance and with the help of a pocket witness Madho Singh PW 9 companycocted the story, by projecting himself as an eyewitness, and falsely implicated the appellant.
When Jagannath Singh deceased raised objection to their behavior, the appellant fired a gunshot in the abdomen of the deceased as a result of which he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries.
The brief facts of the case as culled out from the case of the prosecution are that on 26th December, 1987 at about 1 p.m. while Gambhir Singh PW 7 brother of the deceased was having lunch at his home, the appellant along with a group of companyaccused persons, each armed with deadly weapons rushed to his house hurling abusive filthy words and picked up a quarrel with his brother Jagannath Singh deceased who was sitting outside on a platform Chabutara along with his nephew Bir Singh PW 11 .
Thus, the presence of the eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful.
On the next day, Dilip Singh Yadav PW 13 seized blood stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence, as per seizure memo.
The presence of Gambhir Singh PW 7 , at the time of occurrence, as heavily relied upon by the prosecution, proves to be false in the light of evidence of Bir Singh PW 11 who numberhere in his testimony mentioned that Gambhir Singh PW 7 alone came out of the house and witnessed the incident and Madho Singh PW 9 claimed that soon after the shooting, Gambhir Singh PW 7 , Bir Singh PW 11 and Shanti Devi PW 8 came out of the house and therefore the accused fled away from the spot.
It is also companytended that the alleged eyewitnesses Gambhir Singh PW 7 , Bir Singh PW 11 and Shanti Devi PW 8 made material improvements in their testimonies before the Court in order to companynect the case of prosecution with the medical report.
P.C., spot map was prepared and Charge sheet was filed against the appellant under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar who companymitted the case to Court of Sessions for Trial.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and marked several Exhibits while the accused examined numbere in defence and numberexhibits were marked on his behalf.
Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellant approached this Court in appeal.
Gambhir Singh P.W. 7 carried the body of the deceased to the police station, Lahar on a bullock cart and lodged the FIR Annexure P 1 at 4.15 PM on the same day.
36 of 1996 whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the State by companyfirming the judgment of the Trial Court for the offence under Section 148 of IPC and companyvicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
V. RAMANA, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
He also seized a gun, 12 live cartridges and 9 empty cartridges from the possession of appellant Mahavir Singh, an axe from Sobaran companyaccused and a lathi from Kanched Singh another companyaccused as per seizure memo and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Sagar.
All the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The Trial Court framed charges u s 302 and 148 of IPC against the appellant and under sections 148, 302/149 of IPC against companyaccused.
