2 to ask Himmatsingh to meet him.
The High Court was of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having recorded a finding that Raja Bhaiya deliberately fired his gun, the other finding made by him that there was a mutual fight and it was number known how the fight had started was companytradictory and such finding was otherwise incorrect and against the weight of the evidence.
The High Court had numbered that although Halkesingh, Himmatsingh, Tekaram were sons of Ramrup and their relations with Raja Bhaiya were strained and there had been an incident about eight days prior to the said murderous assault where Himmatsingh had beaten the servant of Raja Bhaiya, the evidences of the said eye witnesses were number to be disbelieved or discarded.
As usual, he carried his gun with him.
To scare away Raja Bhaiya fires another shot in the air.
Raja Bhaiya fired his gun hitting the deceased on the chest.
Halkesingh thereafter rushed towards Raja Bhaiya in order to stop him from companymitting further mischief.
Against the said judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant, Raja Bhaiya, along with three other accused, namely, Arjun Singh, Hakku alias Hanumat Singh and Jeewan were sent for trial under Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing murder of Ramrup of Village Baghodi.
1 and DW.
As the said persons had been wielding their weapons, Raja Bhaiya in self defence to protect himself by held his gun in both the hands.
The High Court held that the said strained relationship and the incident of beating Tawalsingh was the motive for retaliation by Raja Bhaiya.
One axe blow of Himmatsingh fell on the gun and the gun accidentally went off.
2 and Tikaram, PW.
The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No.
He also found blood stains on the ground and one broken chip Article A , the butt of the gun and a pair of plastic shoes Articles B B s , one leather shoe Article C and two empty cartridges Articles D.1 and D.2 and made a seizure list.
Raja Bhaiya thereafter went to the Police Station with a motor cycle and lodged a report Ex.
The guns, the empty cartridges and pellets removed from the body of the deceased were also sent for examination to the Ballistic Expert.
699 of 1974 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Halkesingh was present in the village Dangidhana at that time and companying to know that Raja Bhaiya was proceeding to his house he rushed to his village and informed his brother Himmatsingh about the developments.
After sending such message, he had been to his field along with his another servant Chaitu.
After indicating reasons, the High Court came to the finding that the case sought to be made out by Raja Bhaiya that the gun went off accidentally when the butt of the gun was hit by axe blow was number to be accepted.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge however was of the view that injuries found on Raja Bhaiya and the damage caused to his gun had number been properly explained by the prosecution and it appeared that there was a mutual fight between Raja Bhaiya on one hand and the deceased and Halkesingh, Himmatsingh and Tekaram on the other, and in such mutual fight injuries were received on both sides and the gun of Raja Bhaiya was damaged.
At the house of the deceased, some altercation ensued between the parties and then Raja Bhaiya fired his gun hitting the deceased on his chest who fell down dead on the ground.
1036 of 1975 by upholding the acquittal of the said three accused persons but set aside the companyviction and sentence of the appellant, Raja Bhaiya, under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. and the High Court companyvicted Raja Bhaiya under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.
According to the finding of the High Court Raja Bhaiya was clearly aggressor being armed with a D.B.B.L. gun and accompanied by three accused persons variously eared and he voluntarily caused the death of Ramrup by firing from his double barrel gun.
Himmatsingh, PW.
Raja Bhaiya also challenged his companyviction under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. in Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter, there was a scuffle between the parties in which the gun of Raja Bhaiya was damaged and Halkesingh, Tekaram and Himmatsingh received injuries.
He was also joined by his two brothers, Himmatsingh and Tikaram, and they all tried to snatch the gun.
Such incident of firing by Raja Bhaiya and causing the death of the deceased had been proved by the evidence of eye witnesses namely Halkesingh, Himmatsingh, Tekaram and Dabbalsingh.
Halkesingh also proceeded to police station, Narsinghpur which was 12 kilometers away and he was also sent for medical examination by the police.
Halkesingh, PW.
699 of 1974 and 1036 of 1975 were preferred against the judgment dated August 30 1974 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No.
As aforesaid, both the said appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a companymon Judgment dated March 11, 1980.
In the melee the accused persons managed to escape.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge inter alia came to the finding that the Raja Bhaiya armed with double barrel gun and Arjun armed with an axe, Jeewan with lathi and Hakku unarmed proceeded towards the village of the deceased.
The prosecution case in short is that Raja Bhaiya, the appellant, and the other companyaccused were residents of village Dangidhana in the District Narsinghpur and the deceased Ramrup was residing in the village Baghodi which was about 2 furlongs away from Dangidhana.
The police arrested the accused persons and also seized two guns one double barrel gun with the broken butt and another muzzle loading gun form Shankersingh, father of Raja Bhaiya on the same night as per seizure memo Ex.
The defence of the other accused was that they were number present on the spot and they had been falsely implicated because Arjun was the brother of Raja Bhaiya and the other two accused persons, namely, Hakku and Jeewan, were his friends.
As soon as he reached there, Halkesingh, Himmatsingh, Tikaram and the deceased Ramrup rushed towards him to snatch his gun.
Both the said appeal Nos.
Halkesingh then caught hold of his gun and a scuffle ensued.
On the next day he sent Himmatsingh and Tikaram for medical examination of their injuries.
He was sent for medical examination of his injuries.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge after companysidering the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and also companysidering other materials on record inter alia came to the finding that on the morning of March 1, 1974, Raja Bhaiya sent someone to the house of the deceased to call Himmatsingh but Himmatsingh had refused to companye.
1, Tawalsingh DW.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the finding that it was number companyrect that the respondent Jeewan was sent to fetch Himmatsingh and it was also number companyrect that Narayan was assaulted by Himmatsingh.
P. 17.
In that scuffle Arjun assaulted Halkesingh with his axe on the head while Jeewan assaulted Himmatsingh and Tikaram with his lathi.
Raja Bhaiya being enraged took a double barrel gun with him and being accompanied by Arjunsingh armed with an axe, Hakku the other accused being armed with a muzzle loading gun and the accused Jeewan armed with a lathi proceeded towards the house of the deceased.
As a matter of fact, three witnesses were also examined, namely, Narayan DW.
1036 of 1975 both disposed of by a companymon judgment dated March 11, 1980.
He then ran away from the spot and went to the police station and lodged a report.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the finding that the gun of Raja Bhaiya did number go off accidentally because of blows falling on the butt of the gun as sought to be alleged by the defence.
The dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying on the decision of this Court in Jamuna v. State of Punjab companyvicted Raja Bhaiya alone under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and acquitted other persons but he categorically came to the findings that Raja Bhaiya had numberright to self defence for firing the gun and hitting the deceased.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Arjun Singh, Hakku and Jeewan but companyvicted Raja Bhaiya under Section 304 Part 1 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for causing death of Ramrup.
The police took up investigation and the police officer, Mr. Shukla, visited the spot and found the dead body of the deceased lying in companyrtyard of his house.
He had also received injuries during the scuffle.
Himmatsingh started retreating inside his house and their father, the deceased Ramrup came out and asked them as to why they had companye.
Himmatsingh was armed with an axe while the others were armed with lathis.
2 and Dr. Jaiswal DW.
The appellant, Raja Bhaiya, pleaded that he had sent his servant Narayan and Tawalsingh DW.
The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur companycurred with most of the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but the High Court was of the view that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that although there was a mutual fight between the parties it was number established that Raja Bhaiya was an aggressor, was number companyrect.
1036 of 1975 inter alia challenging the acquittal of the three accused persons and also challenging the acquittal of Raja Bhaiya under Section 302.
On reaching his house, Halkesingh met his father and also Halkesingh in the Parchhi of their house and told them that Raja Bhaiya and his companypanions were companying to beat Himmatsingh.
By that time, Raja Bhaiya and his companypanions arrived at the house of the deceased.
The High Court inter alia came to the finding that the evidence on record would go to prove without any doubt that Raja Bhaiya fully armed with the loaded gun accompanied by the other three accused variously armed went to the house of the deceased to settle the account with Himmatsingh.
20 of 1974.
The police seized a lathi from Jeewan.
Immediately he proceeded towards the house of the deceased.
Immediately Raja Bhaiya fired his gun hitting the deceased on his right chest who fell down on the ground.
On the morning of March 1, 1974, Raja Bhaiya caught hold of Lachu Patel, a friend of Himmatsingh and beaten him up in his house and Jeewan was sent to the house of the deceased, Ramrup, to call Himmatsingh but Himmatsingh had refused to companye.
P. 11.
After some time, Tawalsingh came running and informed Raja Bhaiya that Halkesingh and Himmatsingh had wrongfully companyfined Narayan and had been beating him.
The High Court inter alia came to the finding that on reaching the house of Himmatsingh, Raja Bhaiya found Ramrup, Halkesingh and Himmatsingh.
With the aforesaid modification of the companyviction and the sentence both the appeals were disposed of.
4, are the sons of the deceased and they had been residing with their father.
N. Ray, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
699 of 1974 and Criminal Appeal No.
