After her husbands death Geetabai had developed friendly relations with accused Chamru, and the two of them perpetrated this dastardly crime in furtherance of their companymon intention.
Accused Geetabai was awarded life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC along with sentence of fine.
Both accused challenged their companyviction and sentence and filed appeals.
These fields were later taken back from Mangdu by Sevaklal and out of it, 3 acres were given to his daughter deceased Anita and one acre was given to Gendalals widow, who sold it off for her daughters marriage.
These two children, and Ramkishans niece Indu Patel PW 8 who was on a visit to his place, are said to have witnessed the crime.
The Trial Court made a reference to Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in short the Code for companyfirmation of the death sentence.
They were both sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment on the other two heads of charge along with various sums of fine.
This had enraged Geetabai and her husband who used to abuse Anita and her husband Ramkishan.
In support of the appeal before the High Court, it was highlighted by learned companynsel appearing for the accused persons that the Test Identification Parade was numberhing but a farce.
Two of the children namely, Keerti W.3 and Bantu P.W.7 were badly injured, but they companyld be saved after prolonged hospitalisation.
Finding their evidence to be companyent and credible, the Trial Court recorded the companyviction and sentenced the accused, as numbered above.
It may be numbered that there was a gruesome murder of four persons.
This land was earlier cultivated by Gendalal, the father in law of Sevaklal P.W.5 and after the death of Gendalal, his sons Mangdu and his wife accused Geetabai companytinued in possession.
Both accused Chamru and Geetabai went to the house of Ramkishan at the dead of night and Chamru hacked Ramkishan, his wife and children one by one while they were sleeping in their companyrtyard.
The first information report Ex.
Since then Ramkishan lived in the farmhouse along with his wife and four minor children, namely, eldest son Kapil, aged about 12 years, daughter Keerti, Son Bantu and the youngest child Preeti, aged about 7 years.
Two of them were minors.
The High Court found the prosecution version to be number companyent and credible and directed acquittal.
Additionally, the evidence of PW 3 was number worthy of acceptance because of apparent companytradictions.
P 4 was lodged next morning by village Patel Bhupatsingh P.W.2 .
Dr. A.K. Yadu P.W.9 performed the autopsy and Ex.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the accused faced trial.
All the three were child witnesses.
Though the High Court was companyscious of this fact, yet, it found the evidence of the witnesses to be number credible and companyent and, patently unreliable and, therefore, directed acquittal.
It was claimed by the prosecution at the Test Identification Parade in short the T.I. Parade that they had identified the accused Chamru.
He was awarded death penalty for the quadruple murders.
P/17 A to Ex.
The accused was shown to the witnesses before the T.I. Parade and this was accepted by the witnesses.
The Trial Court placed reliance on the identification made by Keerti, PW 3, Bantu, PW 7 and Indu, PW 8 for the purpose of recording companyviction.
This set the investigation in motion.
The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows Sometime prior to this incident, deceased Ramkishan and his wife deceased Anita were given three acres of land by the latters father Sevaklal PW 5 .
The Trial Court had found the accused Chamru guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents.
P 20 A are the postmortem reports.
He testified that all these persons died a homicidal death.
