The shots recovered from the body of the deceased were found to be gun shots and number revolver bullets.
There is also the question of incompatibility with the medical evidence regarding the distance from which the gun was shot and the way it was shot.
We find the following narration by Sohrab thereafter to be significant.
mutilated firearm parts, some used and unused cartridges were recovered.
He saw that Nadar was running away towards North and Sobalsingh was following him.
Frank Anthony, P. C. Chandi, A. T. M. Sampat, E. C. Agarwala and K. C. Agarwala, for the appellants.
Sohrab threw away that shirt and companytinued to chase the deceased a little farther after which he dismounted the mare.
The defence story that Nadar was easing himself when he was attacked all of a sudden after which a scuffle between Sohrab and Sobalsingh took place resulting in the accidental firing of the gun was difficult to company prehend.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
But as we said earlier it was overwhelmed by the various companytradictions and failed to companysider what effect it had on unanimous version of the prosecution witnesses that Nadar had given the gun to Sohrab and Sohrab had fired with it at Sobalsingh.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 5, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
How ever, when Nadar was running away, he was injured on the palms is number denied.
Blood was companying out of the hands of Nadar.
Notwithstanding these findings, the High Court found that there was unanimity in the evidence of all the witnesses that Sohrab fired the fatal shot or shots with a gun given by Nadar.
The payjama of the deceased and the two knives, said to have been recovered at the instance of accused Bashir, were sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist and according to his report only on one of the knives blood was found, but it companyld number be companyfirmed as human blood Autopsy,on Sobal singhs body showed that he had died of internal haemorrhage and shock resulting, from gunshot wounds and injuries to vital parts like liver spleen and lungs Accused Nadar was twice operated an and five bullets were extracted, throe from the left hand and two from the right.
I told Nadar to go and make a report at the Police Stations.
That Nadar was injured as a result of that gun shot was also number denied.
of the seven incised injuries, most of them were postmortem wounds as spoken to by Dr. Pawar and at any rate the story that Bashir and Sardar stabbed Sobalsingh with knives was number to be believed.
The Judgment of, the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. The Sessions Judge of Indore ac quitted all the seven accused who were charged with the murder of one Sobal Singh.
He got down from the mare and saw, in the meantime one more fire was shot.
The police reached the spot where the body of Sobalsingh was lying and from that place and the fields in the vicinity, seized several articles including used and unused ammunition of shotgun and revolver, a shirt and a stirrup with a piece of its strap which was detached from the saddle The prosecution case was that after the accused persons were arrested as a result of the statement made by Bashir two knives were recovered from the trunk of a date palm tree near the border of villages Bhaori and Deorakhedi Sohrab is said to have pointed out a, place also on the border of those villages, as the place where he is alleged to have broken up the revolver and the, gun and cut up and burnt the wooden companyponents of the gun.
I got myself relieved of the fear and then after twothree days I myself went to the Police Station.
These pellets were identified to be gun shots.
He got up and ran and cried out save, save.
The story of the pistol was, therefore, discarded.
There the Sub Inspector gave him beatings and did number record his report.
The evidences of Madhosingh P.W. 1, the father of the deceased and the other witnesses Arjun W. 2, Kishandas P.W. 6, Babulal P.W. 31 were disbelieved.
The prosecution witnesses have also deposed to these facts.
The High Court numbered that a number of companytradictions were pointed out in the account given by the eye witnesses P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 31 and that the prosecution has number been able to explain the injury which Nadar had on the palms of his hands which injuries, according to the High Court, indicated that he was protecting himself against gun fire.
As regards firing of a pistol, there is absolutely numbercorroboration and the evidence was characterised as a myth.
The version of the accused that the gun shot injuries were caused accidentally, well number believed.
A saddle from which one of the stirrups with a part of the strap was missing was recovered from the house of one, Darvesh, the maternal uncle of accused Sohrab.
several articles companynected with the firearm Were recovered. ,
Nadar in his statement also admits that on the day of the occurrence Gabbu, his sister in law and he was going to attend the dated fixed in the case of Chhogya Chamar at Sawer, that Sohrab had started on a mare before them, that their cart came ahead of Maharajganj, that behind the cart at some distance Sobalsingh and Chhogya were companying, that Sobalsingh had a gun in his hands, and that he Nadar got down from the cart and sat for urine in a field at some distance.
As a companysequence of this statement,.
In an appeal by the State, the High Court while maintaining the acquittal of five of them viz.
I went to Kadava being afraid where I have relatives.
Sobalsingh came behind him.
Within an hour of the incident, the deceaseds father, Madhosingh, who himself claims to be an eye witness, made a report at the police station, Sanwar, which is only a mile and a half from the scene of the occurrence.
The hole in the shirt companyld have been only caused by the firing of the pistol and numberhing companylected on the spot showed that Sohrab fired a pistol or he fired a pistol on Sobalsingh.
At once a gun was fired.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
This appeal is by certificate against the said companyvictions and sentences.
Ismail, Bashir and Sardar were on bicycles and Sohrab was riding a mare and was carrying unlicensed revolver with him.
It is said that as a result of the cumulative effect of firing by Sohrab and stabbing by Bashir and Sardar, Sobalsingh died on the spot, after which Sohrab, Nadar, Bashir and Sardar went upto the Chhakda, and on Jinnatbai asking whether the man was dead or alive, she was told that he had been finished and Kudarat avenged.
It is alleged that on the morning of 26th February, 1966 all the seven accused started from the house of Sohrab.
It was also the case of the prosecution that divers were employed to.
After recording the information an F.I.R. was issued.
He says I dropped the gun.
The strap which is alleged to have been found near the scene of the occcurrence according to the prosecution case,, matched with the stirrup and strap found on that saddle.
explore the bottom of the river Kshipra near that place from where the other parts of the gun were recovered and a number of disjointed and.
Sohrab is then alleged to have fired the gun at Sobalsingh as a result of which both Sobalsingh and Nadar fell down.
The story that Sobalsingh was chased by Sohrab while riding a horse or that Sohrab had fired pistol shots and had pulled out Sobalsinghs shirt during, the chase was characterised as a pure fabrication.
Just then Nadar came running with a double barrelled shot gun, which he handed to Sohrab and caught hold of Sobalsingh.
He ran and went towards the cart.
This was companyroborated by the medical evidence which indicates that the injuries on the deceased were due to gun shot injuries.
Having sat in a cart he came to Sawer with his sister in law and from there he sent her to Khajrana by a motor bus, and went to the Police Station to lodge a report.
There is also the evidence of the incident having taken place in a field in which the deceased was found and there was unanimity on the point that Nadar handed over the gun to Sohrab and Sohrab fired a shot on Sobalsingh who fell down after which a second shot was fired.
26 of 1967.
Sardar and Bashir struck blows with knives having knelt on Sobal to kill him while fallen.
Within an hour of the incident, an F.I.R. was lodged in which the main story as spoken to by the witness was given.
240 of 1969.
The prosecution case is that there was a strained relationship between the accused and the deceased inasmuch as in December, 1963, one Kudrat, the husband of Jinnatbai, was murdered and for that murder, Sobal Singh, the deceased, was prosecuted along with another person, but they were acquitted.
Near the village Maharajganj, the, accused persons were alleged to have overtaken the two groups of persons and went further ahead.
One more fire was shot but it did number strike him.
The statements of these two accused, as we have said earlier, lend further credence to the evidence of the prosecution that the incident took place as alleged in the field where Nadar and Sobalsingh were present, that there was a fire from the gun as a result of that fire and the subsequent one, Sobalsingh died.
Jinnatbai with her little son and Nadar went in a chhakda driven by Gaburia.
We shall examine their statement in the, companytext of the prosecution case as spoken to by the eye witnesses.
All the accused denied that guilt and in so far as the appellants are companycerned with whose case alone we are companycerned in their statement under Section 342, they do number say that numbersuch incident took place but that the death of Sobalsingh was number caused by them.
It is further alleged that shortly before the departure of the accused persons, Sobal singh left Solsindhi for Sanwer on foot accompanied by one Chhogia and were closely followed by Madhosingh, Kishandas, Kana and Bhawarsingh in a Chhakda.
That the shot was fired when the gun was in the hands of Sohrab, is spoken to by all the witnesses and the High Court is justified in companying to the companyclusion that Sohrab had fired it deliberately at Sobalsingh.
Just at that time Bashir and Sardar came running to the spot and struck Sobalsingh with knives.
The shirt which was recovered from the scene of the, incident which had a hole, was examined by the expert who was of the opinion that that hole companyld only be caused by o.38 revolver.
As it fell down again fired.
The ballistic experts who I also examined several articles, said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused Sohrab were sought to be pieced.
At the time when they left, it also appears that Jinnatbai handed to Nadar an unlicensed gun which he kept in the Chhakda.
It struck on his hands, and he lay down facing the sky.
Though in so far as the part played by Sardar and Bashir as stated therein has number been accepted with respect to the other part the evidence of the eye witnesses fully agrees with the verison given in the F.I.R. The salient feature of the evidence of the prosecution case are number really denied by the appellants Soharab and Nadar, Soharab admitted that they had started at 7 A.M. to attend the Court, that he was on the mare, that Nadar, his sisterin law, servant Gabbu and one child were going in a cart, that they had a dispute with Chhogya Chamar and he was going ahead of them, and that the cart was behind him.
It was also held that there is numberevidence to prove that either the shirt belongs to Sobalsingh or that the hole in the shirt which companyld only be caused by a revolver bullet companyld number have been caused by Sohrab because the pieces found in the body of Sobalsingh were number from the revolver but are pellets fired from a gun.
After this Soharab got on his mare and went with Nadar, Bashir and Sardar to the place Where the cart of the wife of Kudarat was parked and from there they went towards Panod.
While Sobalsingh and he were both trying to catch hold of the gun, the gun fired and Sobalsingh fell down.
He got to him on the mare.
At that time Sobalsingh was filling a cartridge in the gun.
He jumped off from the mare and caught hold of the gun.
What the accused Sohrab says thereafter is that he had heard the sound of the firing of the gun.
Sobalsingh caught the gun from the side of the barrel and tried to get hold of him.
The Sessions Judge found serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence.
