While two males, Tersiya and Lasiya ran towards a village close by the three females are supposed to have run in the direction of Pansemal and they reached there at different points of time.
Tersiya.
Close by there is a sub Treasury under a Naib Tehsildar and the Naib Tehsildar Mr. Mishra was living in a house close to the outpost.
That was the view which appealed to the High Court and in the appeal before us by special leave, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, this Court will be most reluctant to reappreciate the evidence with a view to see whether a different view of facts companyld be taken.
The Police Station is about 7 miles from this outpost.
All these four told a uniform story as to how Ladkia was assaulted.
In the case of this assault three persons were injured.
The principal assailants of Ladkia were the present respondents.
Bathubai, P.W. 1 run back to Pansemal which was a mile away.
They are five in number, Bathubai, P.W. 1, Lasiya, P.W. 16, Tersiya, P.W. 17, Gunshibai, P.W. 18, and Gula bibai, P.W. 19 Bathubai was shot by an arrow and there can be numberdoubt that she had run to the Police Outpost.
The time of the companying of Bathubai to the police outpost and making her report companyld have been properly fixed by reference to any companytemporaneous entry made in the official registers of the outpost.
Thereupon, he says, he went to the Naib Tehsiidar, Mr. Mishra, who was living opposite to the Police outpost and with him and Gunshibai he went to the field where Ladkias body was lying with his head missing.
These six were Budhiya, Sukhiya, Babu, Guhai, Sitram and Akha diya.
Bathubai, it is alleged, told them that there was a quarrel between them and the residents of Harniya and that the latter had hit her with an arrow.
The State Government has companye to this Court by special leave against only the three respondents referred to above.
Prosecution witnesses belong to the village Bandara and the ten accused belonged to the adjoining village Harniya.
It is the prosecution case that the Head Constable who was in charge of the police outpost was away but there were other police companystables at the outpost.
They are ladkia, the deceased, Bathubai P.W. 1, and Ter Singh alias Tersiya, P.W. 17, Ladkia was killed on the spot.
According to the prosecution the incident out of which the case arose took place at about 5.30 P.M. on 11 2 1968 in the field belonging to one Shiv Sahai about a mile away from Pansemal.
It may be mentioned further that at the time of the arrest of respondent Sukhiya his Ghaddi half pant Article B was attached as it appeared to be blood stained.
It was companytended for the defence that the assault did number take place at about 15.3O P.M. as alleged by the prosecution but very much later when it was quite dark.
Stones were thrown and Ter Singh, P.W. 27 received a stone hit.
Sub Inspector Shukla came to the outpost at about 9.30 P.M. By that time the other witnesses namely, Lasiya, P.W. 16, Tersiya, P.M. 17 and Gulabiabi, P.W. 19 had also companye to the police outpost and since Bathubai, P.W. 1 was the first to give information about the incident, her statement was recorded by Sub Inspector Shukla as per Ext.
Pansemal is a biggest village having a police outpost and a sub treasury.
P. 11.
The others also assaulted Ladkia.
From the evidence of P.W. 8 Chetram and Devilal, P.W. 9, there were at least three police companystables at the outpost and they were Devilal.
Bathubai received an injury as a result of being hit with an arrow and Ter Singh was by hit by a stone.
There is, therefore, companysiderable room for doubt as to whether Bathubai had companye to the police outpost at about 5.30 P.M. and Gunsibai some half an hour later.
About half an hour after Bathubai had companye to the Police Outpost at Pansemal, Gunshibai, P.W. 18, also came there.
Their uniformity even extended to lies and improvements, as shown by the High Court.
Out of these six, Budhiya was sentenced to death while the other five were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Bathubai went to the police outpost with the arrow in her hand.
That same day a Farsa and an axe were recovered at the instance of respondent Babu.
All nine appealed to the High Court and there was a death reference by the learned additional Sessions Judge against Budhiya.
The evidence shows that their report was regarded as sufficiently serious for chetram to leave for the police station at Khotiya immediately.
One of them Kisan, who is numberlonger before us, is supposed to have cut the legs of Ladkia with his axe.
Of these, Chetram, P.W. 8 and Devilal, P.W. 9 have given evidence in this case.
The sun set at about 5.30 P.M. on that day and it must have been quite dark when the murder was companymitted.
There is a guard provided for the sub Treasury and it appears that on the day in question besides the regular guard the services of companystable Chetram, P.W. 8, had also been requisitioned as a Treasury guard.
P.W. 17 had received a stone injury and his case is that although he had been hit by a stone he had seen the assault on Ladkia.
But more important than this is the doubt raised as to the time when this assault took place and as to whether these witnesses were present to see the assault.
Respondent Sukhiya gave the first axe blow on the neck of Ladkia.
The prosecution witnesses speaking the assault were all relations interested in falsely implicating as many persons from Harniya as possible, and, in the absence of proper companyroboration to their evidence which was discrepant in itself, numberconviction was possible.
But she did number name the persons who actually killed him.
Nothing seems to have been done thereafter and the party merely waited for the police Sub Inspector Shukla, P.W. 20 to companye to Pansemal for further investigation.
All the residents of Harniya were on inimical terms with the deceased members of his family and, therefore, it was quite probable that number the respondents but some others might have companymitted the crime.
The party ran helter skelter and in the meantime the assailants closed in upon Ladkia who companyld number run.
According to Chetram he boarded the bus for Khetiya at about 8.00 P.M. and on reaching Pansemal he made his report at about 8.30 P.M. That report is Ext.
Respondent Budhiya gave another blow with the Phaliya alias Farsa on the neck of Ladkia.
The only evidence on which the prosecution number relies is the evidence of the supposed eye witnesses.
If about 20 persons had taken part in the assault, as alleged by them, we companyld hardly expect the witnesses to remain near about.
The prosecution case is that those three injured persons along with some of their relatives had gone that morning to the weekly market of Pansemal.
The outpost at pansemal is an important outpost in charge of a Head Constable.
Some Harniya residents had also gone to the market and it appears that there was some quarrel in the market.
Accordingly the respondents were aequitted.
Even during day time we companyld number have expected these witnesses, who were unarmed and incapable of resistance, to remain near the spot where the assault on Ladkiya was taking place.
Chetram and Mishri Lal.
The High Court was of the view that the evidence was far from satisfactory and showed indications of deliberate companycotion.
According to Devilal P.W. 9 who was at the Police Outpost, Gunshibai said that Harniya People had killed Ladkia.
The respondent in the first appeal is Budhiya, s o Devram Koli and the respondents in second appeal are Babu and Sukhiya, both sons of Shivram Koli.
The prosecution story is that about 20 persons emerged from behind the bandh.
G. Palekar, J. These are appeals by special leave by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh acquitting the three respondents.
The other three namely, Lasiya, P.W. 16 Gunshibai, P.W. 19 have number received any injury but they say that they too had seen the assault on Ladkia.
Admittedly, there was enmity between the residents of these two villages and it is alleged that this assault on the villagers of Bandara was the direct outcome of this enmity.
But there was companysiderable doubt as to whether she had seen either her own assailant or the assailants of Ladkia.
The party companysisting of the prosecution witnesses started running on account of the sudden attack and they ran helter skelter.
They were armed with axes, Farsis, lathis and bows and arrows.
Secondly even assuming that these witnesses were accompanying Ladkia at the time, the nature of the assault described by the prosecution was so terrible and ferocious that the witnesses companyld number have remained at the spot to see the assault number companyld they have seen the assault from distance due to darkness.
Her evidence to a large extent was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and we agree with the High Court that her evidence is number useful.
On hearing this verbal report police companystable Chetram left the Police outpost to go to the police Station, Khetiya, under which this outpost was functioning.
The assault companymenced with the shooting of arrows and throwing of stones.
