38 of 1987 was set aside companyvicting them for alleged companymission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.
A First Information Report was lodged by one Mangal Singh PW 1 alleging that at about 8.00 A.M. on 27.09.1987 he along with his nephew Gabbar Singh and another nephew Mansingh deceased went to the house of one Govindas Kurmi for borrowing his bullock cart to carry bricks.
He had many enemies.
Devidayal inflicted a pharsa blow on the neck of the deceased and Mangoo inflicted a ballam blow on his back.
He allegedly again inflicted another blow on his neck causing a big wound.
They inflicted two or three more blows on the back of the deceased, whereafter they ran away.
Before the learned Trial Judge the prosecution in support of its case, inter alia, examined Mangal Singh, informant as PW 1, Kailash and Dabbu, who are said to be eye witnesses, as PW 2 and PW 4 respectively.
While the cart was being led and they reached near the house of Mangoo Kurmi, they found him armed with ballam, Thakurdas armed with axe, Jagdish armed with axe and Devidayal armed with pharsa, were standing at the Chabootra of their house.
He asked his son to accompany them up to the said place.
When two axes and one pharsa, which were said to be the weapons of offence, were produced before him, he opined that having regard to the size of the injuries, the same companyld have been caused with an axe but companyld number have been caused with a pharsa.
According to the said witness on the date of incident at about 4 and 5 a.m. when he was going for easing himself in the morning, he saw the dead body of Mansingh lying near the well and Thkurdas was with him.
The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution witnesses.
Appellant examined one Brijnandan as DW 1.
The defence of the appellants in the case was that the deceased Mansingh was number a man of good character.
988 OF 2006 B. SINHA, J Appellants herein, who are two in number, have filed this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Gwalior Bench at Gwalior, whereby the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.1990 passed by the learned Session Judge, Datia, in S.T. No.
The police later on arrived and had questioned him.
According to him, Mangal Singh had stated that the deceased had inimical relations with many persons, and one of them might have killed him.
He, thereafter, asked Thakurdas to call Mangal Singh, brother of the deceased.
Appellants, thus, along with Thakurdas and Mangoo were tried for companymission of the murder of Mansingh.
He, therefore, might have been murdered by any one of them.
Jagdish inflicted an axe blow on the his back.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Before the learned Trial Judge, Dr. R.N. Gupta, who companyducted the autopsy, examined himself as PW 3.
He had taken the wood of Pragi and grabbed the land of Lal Singh.
Thakurdas allegedly hit the deceased Mansingh on his neck as a result whereof he fell down.
He had also strained relations with one Pragi Choudhari.
In the meantime, Kailash had also arrived.
All the four of them started abusing them saying that they would finish the deceased finally that day.
He had also shot at Bhagirath and had assaulted one Lalloo and companymitted a theft.
They were informed that the same was in the Beda of Birjoo.
5,000/ .
