The High Court after companysideration of the submissions made came to hold that the accused persons were the aggressors and merely because they claimed to have sustained injuries which were simple in nature, this was number a case of free fight and they were rightly held guilty by the trial Court.
According to accused persons, the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have been injured were aggressor since without any reason they started assaults and they pelted stones to protect themselves.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses PWs 2, 8, 9 and 11 were interested witnesses and related to the deceased and, therefore, their evidence was partisan.
As the defence took the plea of their relationship, after carefully analyzing the evidence it has been found companyent and credible and, therefore, the trial Court and the High Court were justified in accepting the prosecution version.
The moment they reached in front of his house, all the accused persons and their associates including some women assaulted and caused injuries to companyplainant party by lathi and stones.
However, companysidering the nature of the evidence brought on record it was held that case under Section 302 IPC was number made out and the same was altered to Section 304.
Information was lodged at the police station and injured witnesses were examined.
The trial Court after companysidering material on record companyvicted the accused persons as numbered above.
The accused persons also claimed to have sustained injuries and were also examined.
While returning as such, they were required to go through a road which passes nearby the house of accused appellant Shriram Jat.
One Ratan escaped and went to Sarpanch Dulasingh and came along with him in a jeep.
Appeal was preferred by the accused persons before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Laxmansingh, Piyarsingh, Ghansi, Mansingh Narain and Hemraj sustained injuries.
Alternatively, it was pleaded that since fight took place and specific roles were number attributed to any particular accused, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Non examination of independent witnesses renders prosecution version unacceptable.
Moreover, the injuries on the accused persons were number explained and, therefore, adverse inference should have been drawn.
Deceased Hemraj was seriously injured.
The judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.
After participating in the Bhajan programme all of them were returning to their village.
