The trial companyrt came to hold that the investigation was defective and the real accused persons had number been brought to trial.
192 193 of 1983 Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 31st January, 1983 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
13 and 14, two outsiders who have been declared hostile by the prosecution.
Investigation as taken up on the basis of the first information report and as a result thereof five persons were put on trial in session trial No.
The fact that these alleged eye witnesses were prepared to implicate the five persons who were acquitted on the earlier occasion and the present appellants on the subsequent occasion in a serious charge like murder is indicative of the fact that numbercredence can be given to the evidence of these witnesses and they were willing to lend their oath to any story that the prosecution advanced.
According to the prosecution on 27th April, 1973, around 4 p.m. the appellants kidnapped Brindaban, the deceased son of P.W. 1, from village Budha and took him in a jeep to Rampura about one kilometer away on the pretext that a pending dispute between Brindaban and some villagers of Rampura would be settled amicably.
Nothing appears to have been done in the matter until 1977 when a fresh investigation was undertaken and it resulted in prosecution of the appellants in the companyrt of session as killers of Brindaban.
Accordingly he disbelieved the prosecution case and directed acquittal of the accused persons.
The trial companyrt assessed the evidence in a fair way and was number prepared to rely upon it.
It, however, did number accept the prosecution case relating to the charge of murder.
1, 3 and 24 of the present trial who are close relations of deceased Brindaban had then testified before the Court that those five accused persons and numberothers including the appellants were responsible for the death of Brindaban.
The High Court fell into a clear error in relying on the two letters marked as Exhibit P 1 and Exhibit P 9.
The High Court did number companye to the companyclusion on the basis of the ocular evidence that the same was acceptable and on the basis thereof a companyviction companyld be recorded, but heavily relied on two documents the first being Exhibit P 1, a letter sent by P.W. 1 Sunderlal to the Superintendent of Police dated 29.4.73 and the second, being Exhibit P 9 a companyfidential letter of the Superintendent of Police to the Deputy Inspector General of the Department The High Court found support for the prosecution case from these two letters and accepting the position that their companytents companyroborated the oral evidence of the witnesses proceeded to reverse the acquittal.
192 of 1983 is by Vinod Chaturvedi while the other is by five of the company accused.
107 of 1973 but they were acquitted by the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 29.1.74.
Thus, while sustaining the acquittal in respect of the charge of murder the companyrt companyvicted the appellants under Sections 148 and 367 of the I.P.C. The peculiar features of this case are that the prosecution had alleged that Brindaban had been murdered by a set of five persons different from the present appellants and had made them face a regular trial.
After the acquittal in 1974 numberhing happened in the matter for three years and suddenly on the same old allegations in the hands of the police, fresh investigation was undertaken and the present set of accused persons were arrayed as murderers of Brindaban.
Those three eye witnesses who on the earlier occasion had deposed that five named assailants were the murderers of the Brindaban changed their version and number spoke that the present appellants were the murderers.
732 of 1980 to the High Court assailing the acquittal and the High Court allowed the appeal and while maintaining the acquittal under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, companyvicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 367 of the Penal Code and directed each of them to be sentenced 3 years rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences with a further direction that the two sentences would run companycurrently.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
732 of 1980.
It was further alleged that later in the evening Brindaban was done to death by being given several blows by blunt and deadly weapons pursuant to the companymon object of the appellants of killing him.
The State of Madhya Pradesh carried an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
Three most material witnesses being P.Ws.
Criminal Appeal No.
Prosecution examined seven eye witnesses being P.W. 1 Sunderlal, father of the deceased P.W. 2 Nathu, a company villager and claimed to be a servant of P.W, 1 by the defence P.W. 3 Kalua, a nephew of the deceased P.W, 23 Jhallu, a brother of the deceased, P.W 24, Nanhaibai wife of the deceased, and P.Ws.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge.
Exhibit P 1 was a letter of P.W. 1, Sunderlal to the Superintendent of Police.
The dead body was brought to village Budha on the following day.
Rajendar Singh and A.K. Mahajan for the Appellants in CA.
N. Mulla and S.K. Gambhir, for the Appellant in C.A. 192 of 1983.
All of them had been charged for offences punishable under Sections 148, 364 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge.
193 of 1983.
K. Sanghi for the Respondent in both the Appeals.
