started arguing with the deceased Govind Singh and when the witnesses tried to intervene, they were threatened by the accused persons to keep away.
Accused persons abused him.
In the trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses being PW 1 Dhanwaram the injured PW 2 Santosh Kumar, PW 3 Bhuwan, PW 4 Rajesh, PW 5 Prahlad Yadav, PW 9 Hiradhar and PW 16 Tikuram Yadav as being the alleged witnesses eye witnesses to the assault of Govind Singh PW 6 Parvati Bai, as being eye witness to the assault of Dhanwaram PW 7 Khilawan the informant PW 8 Daulal, PW 10 Nand Kumar and PW 11 Bhagatram, said to be the labourers working in the field of Tikuram who allegedly saw the deceased Govind Singh in injured companydition before the assault in question PW 12 Chandkishore, PW 13 Punarad Ram, PW 14 Reshamlal and PW 15 Dayaram as being the witnesses in the investigation proceedings relating to preparation of inquest report or seizure memo or site plan PW 17 Ram Dhruv, the nephew of Khilawan who accompanied him to police station PW 18 Dr. Pradeep Hishikar, who companyducted post mortem PW 19 Dasrath Deycate Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recorded the statements of some of the witnesses PW 20 V.S. Urmaliya, the Investigating Officer and PW 21 Dr. V. Chaterjee, who examined the injured Dhanwaram and prepared his injury report5.
They told us to move away.
I did number see any other weapon.
They came and started argument with Govind Singh.
1 Dhanwaram2 sustained grievous injuries and another at about 5.30 p.m., which led to the death of one Govind Singh.
185/1998 was registered.
The injured witness PW 1 Dhanwaram, while supporting the prosecution case, inter alia, stated that he fell prey to the beatings of Kedar, Mangal, Khemraj, Duleshwar, Vivekanand and Bharosa.
After companypletion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Schedule Tribe Prohibition of Atrocities, Raipur against 18 accused persons for causing rioting while being armed with deadly weapons, for causing murder of Govind Singh, and for attempting to cause murder of Dhanwaram.
stains.
The injury report of Dhanwaram was also obtained.
Due to the enmity because of this dispute, on 15.10.1998 at around 4.30 5.00 p.m., the accused persons Bharosaram A 1 , Duleshwar A 2 , Chintaram A 4 , Khemraj A 6 , Vivekanand A 9 , and Kedarnath A 18 assaulted Dhanwaram PW 1 with different weapons and caused him injuries.
3336 of 1999 before the High Court, whereas the companyplainant preferred a Criminal Revision No.
However, by the order dated 04.02.1999, the learned Special Judge held that the matter was number to be proceeded in the Special Court.
but were number told from whom they were seized.
I saw blood stain on the clothes of the deceased, I stated this to the police.
During the investigation, police obtained the post mortem report of the deceased which companyfirmed that he succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon him.
Khilawan and Ram Dhruv took Dhanwaram home.
517 of 2000 against the acquittal of the other accused persons.
However, numbersuch appeal is preferred on behalf of the other companyvicted companyaccused namely, Chintaram A 4 and Khemraj A 6 .
All the accused person carried lathi in their hand.
PW 18 Dr. Pardeep Hishikar companyducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Govind Singh.
Coupled with such testimony remains the fact that several blood stained weapons and clothes were seized by I.O. during investigation.
The accused persons, after assaulting Dhanwaram, went in search of Govind Singh, brother of Dhanwaram.
Essentially, the companyviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 has been questioned in these appeals and the principal ground of challenge is that there is numbercogent evidence about their involvement in the crime in question.
When Santosh Kumar PW 2 and Prahlad Yadav PW 5 tried to intervene in the matter, they were threatened by some of the accused persons to stay away and else, they would also be done away with and therefore, they stepped back.
Due to assault Govind Singh died on the place of occurrence.
A revision petition was also filed by the companyplainant against acquittal of the remaining accused persons.
They ran towards Govind, started assaulting him.
Due to assault Govind fell down, at that time two persons caught his leg and dragged him towards canal, other were going beating him.
The High Court, however, found numberground to interfere and hence dismissed the appeal as also the revision petition and thereby, affirmed the decision of the Trial Court.
In a brief outline of the material aspects, it companyld be numbericed that in the present case, the appellants, seven in number, being Accused Nos.1,2,5,7,8,12 and 131 were tried together with several other companyaccused persons for the offences relating to the two incidents which took place in village Kodebod, police station Kurud, district Dhamtari M.P. number Chhattisgarh on 15.10.1998 one at about 4.30 5.00 p.m., in which, the Prosecution Witness No.
Being the material witness whose testimony has largely formed the basis of companyviction, the material parts of his deposition companyld be usefully extracted as under On 15.10.98 at 5.20 pm.
Someone carried hatchet as well.
He also alleged that Bharosa and Chintaram held both the legs of the deceased 5 It may be numbericed that PW 8, PW 9, PW 13 and PW 14 were declared hostile.
On this report, FIR No.
In the first place, he asserted that Bharosa A 1 , Nand A 12 , Chinta A 4 and Bhanjan A 5 asked him to move away.
They assaulted by danda.
The report relating to the incidents was made to the police by Khilawan PW 7 at about 7.00 p.m. who narrated the aforesaid incident and alleged that after hiring a jeep and upon search, he found the dead body of his father across Kalley Canal with many injuries on his head, face, numbere and whole of the body.
They were assaulting Govind with lathi itself.
I did number see any injury on the body of Govind.
The witness also stated that Santosh and Prahlad went to intervene but were asked number to intervene.
In cross examination, this witness stated that he did number know the names of the accused persons and he did number disclose their names to the police number companyld say who assaulted on which part of the deceased.
Govind Singh was also standing near the Kulley Bridge.
As per the statement of Tikuram Yadav PW 16 at around 4.30 p.m., the deceased Govind Singh came to his farm on bicycle of Mangalram A 14 with injuries on hand and head and on being asked by PW 16, the deceased told him that Mangal Patwari A 14 had attacked him with sword.
xxxCross examination for accused I stated the matter of Govind being interrogated by Angad to the police, if police did number record I can number tell the reason.
The companyplainant alleged that Mukesh Nirmalkar, Duleshwar, Chintaram, Bhanjan, Khemraj, Keshav Prasad, Khemuram, Bharosaram, Vivekanand, Vasudev, Chemanand, Garibram and some other persons did marpeet with lathi danda to his father Govind Singh and uncle Dhanwaram due to which, Govind Singh died and Dhanwaram sustained serious injuries.
I stated that Khemraj and Duleshwar assaulted Govind Singh by lathi to the police.
As against the decision of the High Court, Bharosaram A 1 , Duleshwar A 2 , Bhanjan Singh A 5 , Keshav Prasad A 7 , Khemuram A 8 , Nand Kumar A 12 and Lakhan A 13 have preferred these appeals.
All the accused person carried lathi.
He specifically denied the presence of the accused Mangalram A 14 during the incident.
Seeing this I got afraid and went near Kheduram who was present in shop.
This witness stated that he moved away after such blows were given to Govind Singh and did number see the happenings thereafter.
They asked me about Govinds address.
The witness further stated that later on, he saw the assault on Govind Singh from a faraway place and, therefore, he was unable to recognize the assailants and later on, he got to know from his locality that deceased Govind Singh was assaulted by Bharosa, Chinta, Garib and their friends.
186/1998 came to be registered and investigation was undertaken.
Against the aforesaid order of companyviction, the appellants and other companyvicted accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.
I replied, I do number know.
In my police statement I did number tell the name of any of the accused person.
At the very moment accused persons came towards canal and road side.
Prahlad Yadav, examined as PW 5, is the star witness in this case who narrated the incident of assault on Govind Singh and specifically stated the names of some of the accused persons.
According to this witness, Govind Singh demanded two hundred rupees which he did number give and thereafter, Govind Singh proceeded towards bus stand.
However, before being declared hostile, this witness, inter alia, stated as under I know the accused persons present in the companyrt.
At the beginning we had tried to intervene but later on we did number try to intervene.
This witness further stated in cross examination that he did number know the names of accused persons and that he did number intervene.
If police did number record the statement as per my version I can number tell the reason.
P/13 to P/27.
Hence, the appeal as also the revision petition were dismissed.
Thereafter, Bharosa, Nand, Chinta, Bhanjan came to me and told You move away, otherwise you will be killed Then I moved away from there.
The reliability of evidence led by the prosecution has also been assailed in these appeals apart from other companytentions companycerning the surrounding factors.
xxx Cross examination I do number know name of any of the accused person.
The evidence Having regard to the companytentions urged and questions involved, we may briefly take numbere of the relevant aspects of the evidence of material witnesses examined in this matter.
On the other hand, Mangalram A 14 lodged a report at the police station alleging that Govind Ram attacked him with sword.
At that time accused person came towards Kodebode canal and stopped near the culvert.
The relevant facts and background aspects companyld be numbericed, keeping in view the points arising for determination in these appeals.
PW 9 Hiradhar, though declared hostile for number fully supporting the prosecution case, did companyroborate the testimony of PW 2 Santosh Kumar and PW 5 Prahlad Yadav about the assembly of persons searching for deceased Govind Singh and Khemraj A 6 and Duleshwar A 2 having given lathi blows to Govind Singh due to which he fell down.
The accused persons dragged Govind Singh for 2 Km.
I was near the Kulley Bridge.
I stated to police the matter of being told by Khemraj and Duleshwar about Govind Singh beating the Patwari and companying.
They stopped fighting.
In re examination, he specifically stated the names of Bharosaram A 1 , Chintaram A 4 , Bhanjan Singh A 5 , Garib Ram Sahu A 15 , Lakhan A 13 , Hemu a person of this name was neither mentioned in FIR number tried by the Trial Court , Keshav Prasad A 7 and Nand Kumar A 12 .
PW 3 Bhuwan and PW 4 Rajesh again testified to the occurrence with deceased being caught by legs and dragged while others kept on beating him.
Further, numberevidence was found against the acquitted accused persons.
Thereafter, I returned home.
PW 8 Daulal, PW 10 Nand Kumar and PW 11 Bhagatram saw Govind Singh in injured companydition after the alleged attack by Mangalram on him.
While admitting their signatures Ex.
He has to be killed and they started assaulting.
Govind Singh fell down, Bharosa caught his one leg and Chinta caught another leg, they dragged Govind to Kodebode from canal and other were going by beating him.
PW 9 Hiradhar partly narrated the prosecution story but did number support the entire prosecution case and hence, was declared hostile.
According to the prosecution, on the same day i.e., on 15.10.1998, another incident took place at around 5.30 p.m. in which Bharosaram, Chintaram, Khemraj, Bhanjan Singh, Khemuram, and other accused persons assaulted Govind Singh near Kalley Bridge and inflicted upon him varying injuries.
Who assaulted on which part of the deceased, I can number tell.
All were carrying stick danda .
Thereafter, what happened I did number see.
PW 13 Punarad Ram and PW 14 Reshamlal had been the witnesses to seizure proceedings in Ex.
The site plan was prepared tangiya, blood stained lathis, dandas, baniyans, lungis and shirts were seized and the statements of the witnesses were recorded.
Bharosa Ram and Chinta caught both legs of Govind and dragged him, others were going beating him.
This witness further stated that during the said attack, when Govind fell down, he was dragged by holding his legs and while being dragged, the other accused persons kept on beating him.
Someone among the accused person said that uncle was assaulted and quarrelled.
When I went there and forbade them to fighting.
They were declared hostile.
Parvati Bai PW 6 , who was passing by, saw the accused persons assaulting Dhanwaram she ran screaming and informed Khilawan PW 7 , son of the deceased, about the incident that she had witnessed.
The relevant facts and background The prosecution case has been that a dispute in relation to the fields and demarcation of ridge was going on between Biselal Sahu, brother of Mangalram A 14 and Dhanwaram PW 1 , brother of the deceased and a 3 Vivekanand A 9 was companyvicted only for the offence under Section 325 IPC and, as he was found to be minor on the date of incident, was awarded lesser sentence of one year and three months.
It is true that in my police statement I stated that 20 25 people came with lathi.
PW 2 Santosh Kumar, the eye witness to the incident where Govind Singh was assaulted stated that himself and Angad, Bhuvan Singh PW 3 , Rajesh PW 4 and Prahlad Yadav PW 5 were present near the place of incident where the accused persons, armed with danda, tangiya etc.,
114 of 1999.
P/13 to P/27, they stated that they were shown sticks etc.
The relevant part of the testimony of PW 3 reads as under I was near the culvert, it was 500pm, Santosh, Prahlad, Rajesh and Nandlal were also with me.
He told lets move from here and immediately we moved from there.
They told that Govind Singh had to be killed, on which all person who were standing with me moved a side.
I did number see even Lakhan companymitting marpit.
In the testimony of PW 5 Prahlad Yadav, number only the incident has been narrated in fuller details but several names of assailants have occurred.
Thereafter, two of the accused persons dragged the deceased by his legs while the others kept on beating him with weapons the deceased was dragged to a faraway place towards the canal, where he succumbed to his injuries.4 3.2.
Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari and being sessions triable matter, the same was companymitted to the Sessions Court, Raipur and was ultimately tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in S.T. No.
While passing the companymon judgment and order dated 12.09.2014, the High Court, after dealing with the companytentions urged on behalf of the appellants herein and the company accused, affirmed the decision of the Trial Court and held that numberdefence had been taken by the accused persons that they had gathered at the place of occurrence for some purpose other than assaulting the deceased.
I did number see Mangalram, Narad, Laxman, and Kedar there.
Santosh, Heeradhar, Bhuwan, Nandlal and Rajesh were with me.
PW 16 Tikuram Yadav stated that at about 430 p.m., Govind Singh came to his barn on the bicycle belonging to Mangal Patwari and he saw injuries on the persons of Govind Singh who said that Mangal Patwari had assaulted him by sword.
PW 4 Rajesh stated that on the date of incident, in the evening, while fishing in canal he heard the numberse of quarrel whereupon he ascended the boundary of the canal and saw 15 20 persons attacking Govind Singh two persons were dragging Govind Singh by legs across the canal while others kept on beating him one or two persons were carrying tangiya and rest were holding lathi.
As per the chemical examination report of Assistant Chemical Examiner, Regional FSL Raipur, some of the seized weapons and clothes were found to companytain blood 4 It appears that on the same day and around the same time, but before the incident resulting in the death of Govind Singh, yet another incident took place involving the deceased Govind Singh and Mangalram A 14 .
They were saying that Govind Singh has companye after fighting.
civil case related to this dispute was also pending.
PW 3 Bhuwan stated that the accused persons came towards Kodebod Canal, stopped near culvert and asked about Govind Singh and though he expressed want of knowledge, the accused persons saw Govind Singh near culvert and assaulted him.
At the same time they saw Govind near the culvert.
Thereafter, all the accused person together started assaulting by stick.
However, PW 3 and PW 4 did number name any particular person as being the assailant.
Except Vivekanand A 9 3, other 9 accused persons preferred an appeal to the High Court against their companyviction and sentence.
At that time about 17 18 accused persons came from canal side.
PW 6 Parvati Bai, the eye witness to the assault on Dhanwaram stated that the accused Mangal, Gareeb, Chintaram, Bhanjan, Bharosa, Narad, Keshav, Lakshman and their sons and daughter assaulted PW 1 Dhanwaram.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. Introductory with brief outline These three appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 12.09.2014, as passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.
and dragged him towards canal while the other accused persons kept on beating him.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW 2 reads as under .
