The incident in question took place on 30.10.1991.
A companytusion 3.1 x 2 cm.
They ran to save him, but Prakash and Badrlal jumpged a hedge and came near the deceased.
Dinesh admittedly has expired.
Considering the seriousness of the injury, I referred him to M.Y. Hospital, Indore.
On the same day at about 05.30 p.m. the deceased was going to the market.
Appellant gave him a lathi blow on his leg.
Apart from the injury on head, he suffered injury upon the back on the left side of the shoulder.
Appellant is said to have hit the deceased in his leg, whereafter Badrilal had assaulted him on the head from behind.
upon left parietal region of the head, which companyour was reddish brown.
The injuries received by the deceased on his head caused multiple fractures.
When he came near a gate known as badi phatak, Appellant together with the said Badrilal and Dinesh chased him with lathis.
The Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Ravinder Choudhry PW 11 , on the other hand, found the following injuries on the person of the deceased A companytusion hembresion 2.4x2 cm.
Thereafter, the accused persons along with four others ran away from the spot.
Hiralal PW 2 , and Mangilal PW 3 are witnesses to the second occurrence whereas Laxminarayan PW 5 and Rameshchandra PW 6 are witnesses to both the occurrences.
The said injury would have been caused by and blunt but hard material.
Death was opined to have occurred on account of multiple fractures of parietal bone of the deceased.
PWs 2 and 3 also testified to the aforementioned effect.
Apart from the said witnesses, the prosecution relied also upon the evidence of Bhimsingh PW 8 .
upon the back on the left side of the shoulder.
Both the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court have relied upon the evidence of the eye witnesses.
He was examined by Dr. K.K. Sharma PW 17 .
The prosecution examined 19 witnesses before the learned Sessions Judge.
The deceased, Ramprasad was a teacher.
in the middle of left shoulder front side , which companyour was reddish brown.
They were asked number to do so by the witnesses.
PW 2 was the first person to bring water from a shop and gave it to the deceased after he had fallen down.
Ramprasad was removed to the Primary Health Centre.
He thereafter succumbed to the injuries, whereupon post mortem on his dead body was companyducted by Dr. Ravinder Choudhry PW11 .
The witnesses tried to pacify them.
At about 01.00 p.m. Badrilal, companyaccused, Appellant and Ramprasad deceased , quarreled on account of damage to the crops by cattles.
The injury had been received within 6 hours.
They thereafter fled away.
PW 17 in his deposition stated that upon examining the deceased he had numbericed the following injuries on his person A bruise 2 x 2 inches upon frontal portion of Head.
Badrilal assaulted him on the parietal region of the deceased.
Haematoma was present upon the Head.
Allegedly, Badrilal was assaulted by Ramprasad.
While others were acquitted, Appellant, Badrilal and Dinesh were companyvicted under Section 302/34 IPC.
The intensity with which he was hit is, thus, self evident.
Despite the same, they did number desist from so doing.
In the first one, Badrilal was assaulted by the deceased and in the second one, the deceased was assaulted upon having been chased by the accused persons.
The defence also examined 3 witnesses.
B. SINHA, J Appellant herein has questioned a judgment of companyviction and sentence dated 25.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 1997, wherein Appellant was found guilty for companymission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years.
