Factual scenario as described by the prosecution is essentially as follows Lekhram PW 2 and Gopal hereinafter referred to as the deceased were sons of Ramlal PW 1 .
His dying declaration was recorded.
Though, initially the tree was in possession of Ramlal, after measurement he parted with possession thereof.
On the date of incident i.e. 9.6.1986 there were altercations between the accused persons and the deceased, his brother Lekhram and father Ramlal.
Ramlal and Lekhram fled away from the place of incident, and returned later on with the other villagers.
On the basis of the said measurement, it was found that land belonging to accused Mangal Singh was in the possession of Ramlal PW 1 and over the said land a berry tree existed.
On companysideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that the accused persons were guilty and accordingly companyvicted and sentenced them as aforenoted.
Lekhram responded that it was cut three days prior to the incident as the tree belonged to them and was planted by their family members.
Accused Sunder is the nephew of accused Gapoo.
Said tree was cut by the family members of Ramlal PW 1 a day prior to the incident for which deceased had altercation with the accused persons.
P 1 recorded by Dr. Chaturvedi PW 3 .
On the request made by Ramlal PW 1 , measurement of the land was done by the revenue authority.
They took the deceased who was then grasping for breath on a company to Maharajpur Police Station.
This led to altercations and scuffles amongst them and the accused persons assaulted deceased, which resulted a fracture of his leg.
Though, in support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellants attacked the findings recorded, ultimately he companyfined his arguments to the question relating to nature of the offence.
Later on, deceased took his last breath on 10.6.1986 at 2.00 a.m. Dr. Chaturvedi sent the intimation of death to the Police Station.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP CRL.
Accused Gapoo Yadav is the father of accused Janku, Kewal and Mangal Singh.
Deceased, the witnesses and the accused belonged to the same village and there was land dispute between them.
On examination he found 7 injuries on his body.
Deceased claimed that he had number cut the tree.
When Ramlal and Lekhram went to save him, the accused persons ran towards them threateningly.
NO.4782/2002 ARIJIT PASAYAT J. Leave granted.
Appellants hereinafter referred to as the accused by their respective names question legality of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 18.4.2001, upholding their companyviction for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2,000/ with default stipulation, and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/ with default stipulation respectively.
It is to be numbered that apart from the evidence of the two eye witnesses, reliance was also placed on the dying declaration Ex.
Information was given by the deceased to the police at 8.45 p.m. He was sent for treatment and was examined by Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi PW 3 .
Accused Janku enquired from the deceased as to why they were cutting the tree.
Accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
In appeal, the companyviction and companysequential sentences imposed were upheld.
The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions, and finally charges were framed under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
