The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded their innocence.
Dr. Muvel found only three external injuries on the person of the deceased vide his medical report Exhibit P 12 .
The appellant and other accused persons threatened the companyplainant and others and fled away from the scene of the occurrence.
Intimation to this effect was sent to the police.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 26.5.2004 in village Teki marriage function of the daughter of one Rama was going on.
In the afternoon between 3 to 4 p.m. father and mother of the companyplainant i.e. Mal Singh hereinafter referred to as the deceased and Sajan Bai, went to the house of Rama for taking meals.
Therefore, they were put to trial.
It was submitted that against accused Neelabai the prosecution had changed its stand from time to time.
Name of accused Govind and Leelabai were number mentioned in the first information report lodged by Madhu PW 2 .
At that time the companyplainant Madhu Singh was sitting and taking his meal and his father was going to another room for taking meal.
Accused Munna also caused injury on left shoulder and left hand of Mal Singh.
Further investigation was done by S.P. Singh Sisodiya PW 10 , and the Station House Officer.
PW 2 lodged the report Exhibit P 2 on the same day in the night about 8 p.m. at Police Station Baag.
In the said marriage function, Rama invited companyplainant Madhu Singh PW 2 and his family members.
Suddenly, appellant Pappu dealt a lathi blow on the left side of the head of the deceased Mal Singh.
Injured Mal Singh was sent for medical examination to Primary Health Centre Baag, where he was attended by Dr. H.S. Muvel PW 6 .
Because of blow by lathi, Mal Singh fell down on the ground.
The injured died in the District Hospital, Barwani on 27.5.2004.
His report, Exhibit P 2 , was recorded by Inspector K.C. Pathak PW 7 .
The incident was witnessed by Ban Singh PW 5 , Sajjan Bai PW 3 , Madhu PW 2 and Kamlabai.
The fatal blow was attributed to the appellant, while rest of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, in the opinion of the doctor PW 9 , were simple in nature and the same did number companytribute to the cause of death of the deceased.
The deceased fell down unconscious because of the injuries.
Stand of the State on the other hand was that looking to the number of injuries and the nature thereof i.e. on the head and other parts of the body, companyviction has been rightly recorded.
At that moment Madhu, Ban Singh and Sajjan Bai witnesses rushed to save deceased Mal Singh.
The prosecution witnesses PW 2, PW 5 and others tried to assault the appellant.
5706 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
By the impugned judgment companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and sentence of RI for life and fine of Rs.500/ imposed by the trial Court were maintained.
There was exchange of hot words and altercations took place.
They examined Laxman DW 1 , Ram Singh DW 2 in their defence.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
On the basis of the report Crime No.90/04 under Sections 307 and 294/34 IPC was registered.
At that juncture accused Bondar, his son accused Pappu i.e. the present appellant and Munna reached there, abused Mal Singh and asked him as to who had invited him.
So far as the accused Bonder is companycerned, it was stated that he had abused the prosecution witness who claimed to be eye witnesses.
Challenge in this appeal is to the companyrectness of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench.
He prepared spot map, Exhibit P 3 and effected seizure of Terricot Kurta, Dhoti and Shawl from the house of the deceased Mal Singh.
Postmortem was performed by Dr. Deepak Mayeriya PW 9 .
Injured Mal Singh was immediately referred by letter, Exhibit P 13, for further treatment to District Hospital, Barwani because at that time he was in companya.
Thereafter, the police prepared inquest report and sent the deceased for postmortem examination.
On companypletion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed indicating companymission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 294/34 and 506 2 /34 of the IPC against the appellant and other accused persons.
