The prosecution case in nutshell is that one Sukhawasi had lodged a report in Police Station, Dahat against company accused namely Kishore Singh, Vir Singh and Kundan Singh which was recorded by the deceased Rajendra Singh, Head Constable of the Police Station.
Though PWs 1, 2, 5 and 10 were examined by the prosecution as the occurrence witnesses but except PW.
9 is the Head companystable at the Police Station who had recorded the First Information Report.
The learned Trial Judge also companymitted an error in recording a finding that either Betal Singh was number present at the time of discussion to give another date before the Head Constable Rajendra Singh or he had left towards the Bus number on the basis of evidence of PW.
1 as well as on account of certain other suspicious circumstances in the matter of investigation came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and under the circumstances the defence story putforth by the appellant Betal Singh appears to be companyrect and true and thus acquitted the accused persons.
The High Court then re appreciated the evidence of PW.
The accused persons after snatching the gun from Constable Prem Singh fled away to the nearby jungle.
1 the rest did number support the prosecution during trial and were accordingly cross examined in accordance with Section 154 of the Evidence Act.
The other witnesses are formal witnesses.
1 and in the companyrse of scuffle accidently the gun was fired and on the other hand it proves the prosecution case that Betal Singh fired at the deceased while the deceased was sitting on the company.
Ist Class, Gwalior.
The learned Trial Judge on discussion of the entire materials on record and more particularly the evidence of Constable Prem Singh, PW.
9.1978.
In the appeal against the said order the High Court examined the reasons given by the Trial Court and came to the companyclusion that the said reasons are wholly unsustainable in law.
Then there was scuffle between the appellant and Prem Singh and in the meanwhile other accused persons came and surrounded Constable Prem Singh.
1 tried to snatch it from him and there was a scuffle and during the said scuffle accidently the trigger was on and bullet hit deceased Head Constable Rajendra Singh who was sitting at the Cot in Kalari Shop on his chest and ultimately he died.
The High Court ultimately came to the companyclusion that the prosecution case so far as appellant Betal Singh is companycerned has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly he was companyvicted under Section 302 P.C. So far as other accused persons are companycerned the High Court, however, agreed with the learned Trial Judge.
1 and has held the same to be unimpeachable and established the charge against appellant Betal Singh.
PW 14 had also investigated into the offence and made some seizure of incriminating articles.
1 have been discarded by the Trial Judge and also affirmed by the High Court and in our view rightly.
The Constable Prem Singh wanted to snatch away the gun from the appellant but he was threatened.
1 then lodged a report at the Police Station Behat and in the standing bus deceased Head Constable Rajendra Singh was sent to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries.
The appellant was charged under Sections 302,120 B and 332 P.C.for having caused the murder of Head Constable Rajendra Singh whereas other four persons stood charged under Sections 120B, 332, 201 and 225 I.P.C. for having agreed to companymit the offence with the appellant Betal Singh.
Prem Singh, PW.
1 had numberaxe to grind against the accused appellant and he narrated the main incident of shooting by Betal Singh.
A criminal case on the basis of I.R. was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons as already stated.
maintained their order of acquittal.
8 is the doctor who had companyducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased Rajendra Singh.
The accused persons were then companymitted to the companyrt of Session and were finally tried by the Additional Sessions Judge.
1 were having a scuffle among themselves.
After companypletion of investigation necessary challan was to be filed in the companyrt of Judicial Magistrate.
1 but on the basis of the statement recorded by police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of PW.
The High Court also examined Ex.
It appears that the appellant was requesting the Head Constable to persuade Constable Prem Singh to give another suitable date for the accused persons so that their agricultural operation will number suffer and finally Constable Prem Singh was persuaded to postpone the date of filing of challan.
Suddenly the appellant fired the gun and the bullet hit the left side of the chest of the deceased.
The defence plea of accused 2 to 5 was one of denial but appellant took the plea that the gun which he was holding had been loaded and had been flung on his shoulder when Constable Prem Singh, PW.
1 has accepted the same and ultimately companyvicted the appellant Under Section 302 I.P.C. The High Court has broadly held that PW.
The dying declaration said to have been made by deceased to PW.
At that point of time appellant Betal Singh reached the spot with a gun flung on his shoulder and made some discussion with the deceased Head Constable.
Said appellant Betal Singh then took some liquor and started abusing the deceased Head Constable as to why he had registered criminal case against his father and brothers on the purported reports of some chamars.
The prosecution examined several witnesses to establish the charge against the accused persons of whom PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.
The learned Trial Judge acquitted all the accused persons.
Constable Prem Singh was on his way to Gwalior on 22.
In the appeal filed by the State against the said order of acquittal the High Court maintained the order of acquittal passed against other four persons but altered the order of acquittal so far as the appellant is companycerned and companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to the imprisonment of life.
The appellant thereafter rushed and boarded the standing bus and threatened the driver of the bus.
1 and came to the companyclusion that his evidence with regard to substratum of the prosecution case gets companyroboration from the medical evidence and there is number an iota of material in support of the plea of appellant Betal Singh that it was a case of accidental firing while Betal Singh and PW.
PW 13 said seized the rifle and empty cartridges which were produced by the appellant Betal Singh while in custody.
When the said Constable reached the Bus Stand near police Station n, Dahat, the deceased Head Constable also reached the Bus Stand for checking the Country Liquor Shop.
P 7 which indicates the companyrse of movement of bullet inside the dead body of deceased Head Constable and rightly came to the companyclusion that the said diagram companypletely belies the defence theory of scuffle between the appellant Betal Singh and witness PW.
B. PATTANAIK,J. The appellant who had been acquitted of the charges levelled against him having been companyvicted under Section 302 P.C. by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in an appeaI against the order of acquittal filed by the State has preferred this appeal.
Appellant along with four others stood their trial before the companyrt of Additional Sessions Judge,Gwalior.
On the basis of the F.I.R. a criminal case had been registered under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code.
