Prosecution Version in a nutshell are as follows On 21.5.1993 at about 9 A.M. near village Kurthara all the respondents caused murder of Ramavtar s o Buddhasingh and attempted on the life of Rajesh alias Raje and Manik Singh.
As he got up, Gurudayal shot at him with .315 bore rifle.
Additionally it was submitted that when Safina form was prepared at 10.45 A.M. question of preparation of map at 9 AM appears to be doubtful.
It was pointed out with reference to the evidence of Dr. K.N. Sharma PW 14 that Prahlad and Manik Singh had identified the dead body and they informed him that they had seen the dead body for the first time at 7.30 A.M. In the post mortem report Exh.
P 11 was drawn and one empty cartridge of .12 bore rifle and blood stained earth were seized vide Ex.
Prahlad was riding the first cycle and Manik was sitting on the carrier of the cycle behind him.
He admitted that Manik had number reached the police station before him as he was sitting by the side of the dead body when police reached the spot.
On 21.5.1993 in the morning Manik Singh was required to attend companyrt for hearing at Bhind.
When they were near the agricultural field of Ramkishan, then Gurudayal armed with .
It was pointed out that the FIR was prepared in the police station whereas witnesses have deposed that the companyplaint was recorded on the spot.
FIR is said to be lodged at 9.30 M. by Man Singh.
Spot map Ex.
The period necessary for digestion and semi digestion food was indicated by the doctor.
The bullet pierced through the body on the right side of chest and Kailash and Pappu Yadav also fired with an intention to cause death, but bullet had number hurt anyone.
In that view of the matter it was submitted that the FIR was suppressed by the prosecution.
Just behind Prahlad, Rajesh alongwith Ramavtar was following in another bicycle.
P9 the doctor found that the stomach of the deceased was empty and there was numberdigested or semi digested food in the stomach.
It was therefore submitted before the High Court that the incident took place around 7.30 AM and the deceased was murdered by some unknown person and because of enmity the accused persons were falsely implicated.
Trial companyrt after framing charges and on analyzing the evidence tendered, companyvicted the appellants.
315 bore rifle, Kailash armed with single barrel .12 bore riffle, Pappu Yadav armed with single .12 bore rifle and Ramesh alias Chhinge armed with farsa were chasing them.
For attending the Court he left village Kurthara alongwith his brother Ramavtar, his wifes brother and his uncle in law Prahlad and Rajesh proceeding towards Court on bicycles.
It was submitted that the FIR was prepared with deliberation and there was number compliance of the requirements of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
When they reached near the companyplainant party Kailash fired from his .12 bore rifle.
This submission was companyroborated by the statement of Manik PW16 who admitted that when Ramavtar was hit by Gurudayal, he remained at the spot till Town Inspector, Cosntable and other police officer reached the spot.
PW3s evidence was highlighted to show that in para 9 he had deposed that after the fire he ran away from the spot and reported the matter to the station office incharge.
With reference to Exh.
On hearing the gun shot Ramavtar fell from the bicycle of Rajesh.
Later on FIR was lodged at the police station.
He also admitted that 10 to 20 villagers had gathered at the spot but he had number told them about the incident.
Time earlier mentioned i.e. 10.55 A.M. was the companyrect time mentioned in the inquest report.
Before the High Court it was stated that the incident allegedly took place in the early morning and the time of incident is mentioned as 9 AM.
Additionally respondent Gurudayal was charged for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section 25 1 B a of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 in short the Arms Act .
P3 it was submitted that the time of preparation of the spot map was earlier mentioned at 10.55 A.M. which was scored out and the time was changed to 9 AM.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC so far as respondents Ramesh A1 andGurudayal A3 are companycerned and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC so far as the respondents Kailash A2 and Pappu A4 respectively are companycerned.
