While they were passing by a well known as Radhakund or Sarkari Bawadi all the five persons accompanied by Ganesh were standing on the embankment of the pond near the wall when Kunwarji challenged Purshottam to halt and incited the other accused persons to attack him.
Seeing the persons fighting he went there to pacify but Purshottam hit a blow with Lathi on his head rendering him unconcious.
On being so incited accused Bhanwar Singh delivered a blow with a Lohangi at the head of Purshottam as a result of which Purshottam fell down on the ground Accused Juwar Singh Hindu Singh struck Purshottam with Dhariyas while Amar Singh struck him with Pharas.
Jamunabai had two daughters Ram Kunwar and Deo Kunwar respectively.
At first when Purshottam was injured a report had been given and initially the offence was registered Under Section 148, 149 307 of the Indian Penal Code After the dead body was taken to the Police Station, Dhanjanlal who recorded the First Information Report Ex.
The accused denied the offence.
While the recovery of the weapons was admitted by the accused the Additional Sessions Judge found that there was numberhing to companynect those weapons with the offence.
When the person incharge of the bus refused to take the injured he was placed in a cart and while he was being taken to Sadalpur he died.
P. 1 amended the offence into on a Under Sections 148/147 and 302 of Indian Penal Code.
The High Court companyfirmed these companyvictions and sentences, against which one of the accused namely the Appellant has filled this Appeal by Special Leave.
On 18 1 1966 at numbern Purshottam accompanied or closely followed by Ramesh P.W. 1, Babulal P.W. 2 and Jamunabai P.W. 4 were going to their field to fetch the fodder rachka .
The Appellants case however was that he was at own house and saw Ganesh, Babu Lal, Ramesh and Purshottam fighting near the Bhawadi.
He however, believed the evidence of eye witnesses Ramesh P.W. 1, Babulal P.W. 2, Jaunabai P.W. 4, and Sunder singh P.W. 5, but rejected that of Ambaram P.W. 6, and Gendalal P.W. 7.
Accused 1 Bhanwar Singh and Accused 3 Amar Singh are sons of Accused 5 Kanwarji.
An inquest of the dead body was prepared as per Ex.
These ladies rented their lands to the deceased Purushottam who was the real brother of Ramesh Chandra P.W. 1.
The injured Purshottam was put on the company and taken to the Mhow eem Nuch Road with the object of taking him in a bus to Sadalpur which was at a distance of 5 miles from the village Kharod.
P. 2 and the body was sent for Post mortem to the Dhar Civil Hospital where a Postmortem was held by Dr. Kulkarni P.W. 3.
The accused were called into the Police Station on the evening of the 19th arrested on the morning of 21 1 1966.
It is alleged that on information furnished by accused Bhanwar Singh, Hindu Singh, Amar Singh, Juwar Singh a Lohangi, a Pharsa and a Dhariya were recovered respectively at the instance of the above persons.
Relying on these eye witnesses he companyvicted the four accused Bhanwar Singh, Hindu Singh, Amar Singh and Juwar Singh but acquitted Kunwarji.
A number of persons including Jamunabai P.W. 4, Babulal P.W. 2, Sunder Singh P.W. 5, and Gandalal who were present at or near the place of occurrence witnessed the incident.
It is alleged that the lease of the land by Jamunabai and Janibai in favour of Purshottam had aggrieved the accused Juwar Singh who is nephew of Jamunabai and Janibai, It is further alleged that a day before the incident a male calf of the deceased had damaged the rachka fodder of Ganesh and the later had threatened the deceased that he would take revenge.
The prosecution case is that Jamunabai P.W. 4 and Janibai are the widows of two brothers Jawarchand and Nandaji respectively, they owned companysiderable land in village Kherod.
Thereafter accused Bhanwar Singh delivered two further blows with his Lohangi on the back of Purshottam after which all the accused ran away.
The other accused pleaded alibi.
