The trial Court referred to the evidences of PWs.
As the companyplainant Thakur Singh was injured, he was sent for medical examination under Requisition Ex.
After so assaulting the deceased and his wife, the accused persons fled away.
P/1, and Thavlibai under Ex.p/2.
P/6, the following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
The accused persons pleaded innocence.
The impugned judgment of the trial Court was in question before the High Court.
The latter two companyvictions were recorded as the accused persons inflicted injuries to Thavlibai PW.3 and Thakur Singh PW.2.
Fracture of Nasal bone 2Laceration wound 4 cm x 3 cm on front of head at left side of the mid line 3Laceration wound 8 cm x 3 cm at the top of the head skull fracture of skull bone at the parietal area, fracture simple 4Laceration wound 4 cm x 5 cm at right side of the head at front area 5Laceration wound 6 cm x 4 cm at occipital area of head.
The trial Court found 4 that Sec.34 had clear application.
When witnesses tried to save them, they were also extended the same treatment, with the result Thavlibai, after sustaining injuries over her head and mouth, became unconscious and Jogadia succumbed to the injuries.
P/3 and P/4.
In case of the present appellant the companyviction under Section 302 read with Sec.34 was altered and the appellant was companyvicted in terms of Sec.302.
They were also companyvicted in terms of Sec.323 read with Sec.34 IPC.
The other two appellants Lal Singh and Juansingh were acquitted of the charge under Secs.
After examination of their injuries, Dr. S.L. Mujalda PW.1 issued injury reports Exs.
The body was forwarded to the hospital for autopsy and Dr. S.L. Mujalda PW.1 , after autopsy, issued post mortem report Ex.
Three appellants before the High Court i.e. Mal Singh, Lal Singh and Juansingh were companyvicted by the trial Court while Nanki Bai was acquitted.
One of the company accused person Nanki Bai was acquitted.
The accused were arrested and the seized articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
3 1Contusion wound 6 cm.
The trial Court hold them guilty.
This alteration was done primarily on analysis of the evidence produced qua the accused and companyaccused Lal Singh and Juansingh.
2 Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows On 9/12/1999 at 7.40 p.m., FIR Ex.p/9 was lodged by Thakur Singh at 9.35 a.m. While the mother of the companyplainant Thakur Singh and his father Jogadia were sitting on their otla outside the house, the accused persons approached towards the deceased and the witnesses stating that their mother Thavlibai was engaged in witchcraft, started beating the deceased Jogadia and his wife Thavlibai.
90/2000.
The accused were companyvicted for offences punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 and Sec.307 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
x 3 cm at root of numbere.
The investigating officer proceeded to the spot and took samples of blood stained and plain earth as also the blood stains lying on the ground.
According to the testimony of the said Doctor and his report Ex.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Delay companydoned.
After companypletion of the investigation charge sheet was filed.
Leave granted.
Inquest was held and inquest memo Ex.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore affirming the companyviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi District Dhar in Sessions Trial No.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the role was attributed to three accused persons and number to the appellant alone.
The trial Court placed reliance on these witnesses and recorded companyviction.
P/16 was prepared.
The Dr. S.L.Mujalda PW 1 opined that death occurred on account of haemorrhagic shock due to head injury.
