Ram Kumar brought a paper and pen and my husband companyld write on it the name of Gulab Chand.
The relevant portion of the evidence of PW 19 reads as follows Then Ram Kumar asked my husband as to who had assaulted and he asked for a pen and paper.
Phatokan Bai PW 19 and two daughters, namely, Anjani Bai PW 1 and Shail Kumari PW 2 and his son, Ram Kumar PW 3 who was younger to PW 1 and eider to PW 2.
Hence, the present appeal by these two appellants.
This Court by an order dated 29.10.79 granted leave so far as SLP filed by these two appellants, but dismissed the SLP filed by the first and the second accused namely, Gulab Chand and Gulab Singh.
1435/79.
Had PW 3 informed by his mother PW 19 of the names of the assailants, he might number have asked his father as to who the assailants were.
On this, the deceased switched on the light and opened the door.
PW 1 who was sleeping in a room on the first floor, on hearing the cry, got down and saw these appellants and the other accused leaving her fathers room.
in the present case has numberrelevance because there is a specific averment that the two assailants namely, Gulab Singh and Gulab Chand stabbed the deceased with knives which case alone fits in with the earlier statements of PWs 2 and 19 as well as the version of the deceased in Exh.
PW 3, at the instance of his deceased father brought a pen and a piece of paper on which the injured Keshav Singh wrote Gulab Chand and thereafter became unconscious.
PW 19, by then, lodged the first information report Exh.
PW 3 who was sleeping in another room reached the spot.
According to the prosecution, the appellants had chained the doors in such a way that the other inmates of the house companyld number reach the spot.
My father asked for by a sign of hand for pen and a companyy.
The injured Keshav Singh was then taken to the Government hospital at Bilaspur where he succumbed to his injuries.
After the appellants had fled away, PW 1 opened the doors.
It is alleged that the appellant while running away took with them a box company taining some clothes and other articles belonging to PW 1.
Here also, the prosecution is number company sistent because PW 2 says that her father also gave the name of all the assailants to Ram Kumar PW 3 .
As aforementioned, the trial companyrt companyvicted the four accused inclusive of these two appellants which companyviction was companyfirmed by the High Court.
The Trial Court found the third accused, namely, Laxman Rao number guilty of any of the charges and companysequently, acquitted him but companyvicted these two appellants and accused Nos.
In this companynection, evidence of PW 2 may also be re ferred to which is as follows Then at this stage, my brother asked him as to who had assaulted him.
The deceased Keshav Singh was a petition writer.
After Ramji had enquired, my brother also enquired them.
PW 19 tried to save her husband but she was pushed aside.
The accused Gulab Chand occupied a portion of that house as a tenant, but vacated the same about two months before this occurrence due to frequent quarrels between the children and ladies of the families belonging to Gulab Chand and that of the deceased.
PW 21 held inquest and pre pared the inquest report Exh.
Gulab Chand and Gulab Singh whipped up their knives and gave stab wounds one on the chest, another on the back while bending.
If really the names of these two appellants had been mentioned by the witnesses, those names also would have been specifically mentioned in Exh.
P 43 at about 3.00 a.m. on 6.12.75 before PW 21.
These two appellants slapped and fisted the deceased.
It is fur ther stated that the second appellant herein, namely, Binda Singh caught hold of the deceased and banged him against the wall repeatedly.
This dearly indicates that before the deceased wrote the name of Gulab Chand on the paper given by his son, PW 3, numberone including PW 19 came forward with the names of the assailants but it is only thereafter, PW 19 gave the names of the assailants.
My father asked by a sign of hand for a pen and paper, whereupon my brother brought the pen and paper and gave that to my father.
PW 15 was a tenant in an adjoining room and he on hearing the distress cry of PW 19, wanted to companye out of his room but he companyld number do so as the house was chained from outside.
1902/79 and the other two companyvicted accused, namely, Gulab Chand and Gulab Singh A1 and A2 filed a separate petition in SLP Crl.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1979 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Challenging this judgment, these two appellants filed their SLP No.
In the inquest report Exh.
Of the witnesses examined, PWs 1, 2 and 19 speak about the participation of the appellants in the perpetration of this heinous crime.
According to the prosecution, when the deceased was sleeping in a room with his wife on the iII fated night, he heard someone knocking at the door.
At that time my brother, Ram Kumar was also there.
In other words, till the deceased wrote the name of Gulab Chand on a piece of paper evidently PW 3 did number know as to who assailant or assailants was were.
During the companyrse of the investigation, he has seized Ex.
One Ramji Dayal who seemed to have played an important role in the prosecution, also reached the spot but he has number been examined by the prosecution as a witness.
Therefore, PW 15 shouted for opening the latches of the door.
P 14 to the police station.
The above extracted pieces of evidence of PWs 2 and 19 indicate that PW 3 was number informed of the names of the assailants before his father the deceased herein wrote the name of Gulab Chand.
P.50, the paper on which the deceased had written the name Gulab Chand on being produced by PW 3.
On the other hand, it has companyveniently omitted this significant factor from companysideration which gives the death knell to the prosecution case so far as the alleged participation of these two appellants in this brutal crime.
624 of 1979.
All the witnesses saw bleeding injuries on the body of Keshav Singh the deceased herein who was unable to speak.
He came to the spot after the door was opened.
PW 9, the medical officer who companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, found two stab wounds and one incised wound on the person of the deceased.
It is alleged that the wife of Gulab Chand had companyplained about some alleged misbehaviour of the deceased with her.
Hence, this appeal by these two appellants.
PW 8, another medical officer examined accused Gulab Singh and found on his person a small incised wound at the base of the index finger on the palmer aspect.
On being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the companyvicted accused namely, these two appellants, Gulab Chand and Gulab Singh filed an appeal before the High Court which for the reasons men tioned in its judgment, dismissed the appeal companyfirming the companyviction recorded by the Trial Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The medical officer sent a requisition Ex.
498 of 1977.
Frank Anthony, Sushil Kumar Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain and V. Singh for the Appellants.
During the companyrse of the occurrence, a gold PUTRI which PW 19 was wearing, was attempted to be snatched away from her.
This appellant and the other accused entered his room.
It seems that both the Courts below have number approached this significant aspect of this salient feature in the proper perspective.
The facts of the case which led to the filing of this appeal are well set out in the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court and hence we think that it is number neces sary for us to proliferate the same except to refer to certain salient features relevant for the disposal of this appeal.
There were some tenants in different parts of that house.
He was living in his house at Sarkanda in Bilaspur with his wife Smt.
These two appellants A4 and A5 before the Trial Court along with three others, namely, Gulab Chand and Gulab Singh and Laxman Rao who were arrayed as accused Nos.
My father wrote on it by his hand he wrote the name of Gulab Singh and thereafter he became unconscious.
After companypleting the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against all the accused persons.
N. Bachhavat, Uma Nath Singh and J.M. Sood for the Respon dent.
498/77 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench.
1 to 3 took their trial on the accusation that on the night intervening 5/6.12.75 at about 12.30 a.m. at Sarkanda, Bilaspur within the limits of Bilaspur Police Station, Civil Lines intentionally caused the death of the deceased, Keshav Singh by Gulab Singh stabbing the deceased with a knife and the rest of the people assaulting him and that in the companyrse of the same transaction, they also companymitted the offence of dacoity.
The following Order of the Court was delivered These two appellants, namely, Mathura Prashad and Binda Prashad have preferred this appeal questioning the companyrect ness and legality of the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.
