There, Bhagirath and Gopal struck one spear blow each on the left flank of Kashiram, while Manohar gave him a farsi blow.
All the three accused in their examination under Section 342, Cr.
Devisingh PW 2 tried to intercede but Gopal dealt him a blow, too.
The trial judge companyvicted Bhagirath appellant under Section 307.
They would number drag him to a distance of about 80 feet and then assault him.
Devisingh PW 2 went to the Police Station, Khudel and lodged the First Information Report Ex.
It was companycluded The prosecution witnesses have deliberately companycealed to disclose the circumstances which preceded the infliction of injuries to Kashiram.
The prosecution examined sight eye witnesses.
In this companynection, the learned trial Judge said Both pieces of the door clearly show that violence was put on it from inside and number outside.
If the assailants, including the appellant, were armed and he came out, numberhing companyld have prevented the assailants from making an assault on him then and there.
The assailants then ran away.
While Bhagirath and Kashiram were scusffling, Devisingh, Puriya Narayan and Mukand armed with sword and spears came there and assaulted the appellant.
Gopal and Manohar were acquitted.
A third blow attempted by Kashiram landed on the ground with the result that his sword broke into two.
On the day of occurrence, at about 6 P.M. he alighted from a Tampo near the Hotel in village Snavadiya.
Notwithstanding their finding that to a material extent the prosecution story was false, the companyrts below have worked out the companyclusion that this was a case of free fight in the companyrse of which, Kashiram and Devisingh on one side, and Bhagirath and Manohar accused on the other, received injuries.
On this report, another case was registered against P. Ws.
Further, both the companyrts found that the prosecution version, that Bhagirath and Gopal caused one injury each with their spear to Kashiram, stood falsified by the medical evidence according to which there was only one injury on Bhagirath which companyld be caused with a spear.
The defence version therefore, is supported that Kashiram was shut by his friends and his associates in his house when he acted like a bully after his arrival from Indore.
The edges of the holes were inverted showing that the weapon had been thrust from inside and number from outside.
Sub Inspector Shankarrao Chouhan came to the village for investigation.
Keshar PW 6 is the daughter in law of Kashirams brother.
Kashiram was however in rage and in a bellicose mood.
Hence this appeal by him.
The appellant set up a companynter story.
He attempted to break open the locked door with a sword from inside.
Kashiram, Devisingh and two others.
On this point the learned Judge of the High Court observed Kashirams statement that he was pulled out from his house is equally false.
Sword in hand, he charged at Bhagirath and caused the latter a serious injury on the face.
Brandishing an open knife, he started abusing the villagers in general who were languishing near the Hotel.
There, the appellant, also, handed over a written companyplaint to the Sub Inspector accusing that Kashiram, Devisingh and others had assaulted them.
Immediately thereafter the appellant and the two acquitted accused, armed with weapons, raided the house, hammered at the entrance door, broke it open, pulled cut Kashiram and forcibly took him to a distance of 80 feet.
Gopal, Bhagirath and Manohar were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore on charges under Sub section 307, 307/34, Penal Code for the attempted murder of their companyvillager, Kashiram.
8 and 14 are his nephews.
The blade of the spear of one of the assailants got detached from its wooden handle and was left embedded in the would of Kashiram.
The companyrts below have rejected as false, this part of the prosecution story that Kashiram was pulled out from his house, and taken to a distance of 16 paces in the lane and there assaulted by the three accused.
Kashiram caused another injury to Bhagirath.
P. Ws.
The prosecution story ran as under Bhagirath appellant and Gopal, the acquitted accused, are real brothera.
There was also a charge under Section 324 against Gopal for causing hurt to Devisingh.
Some of his relations and friends bodily carried away Kashiram and locked him inside his house so that he may number cause harm to anybody.
Ultimately Kashiram succeeded in companying out by scaling the wall.
On March 30, 1969, Kashiram PW 1 returned to his village Sanavdiya at about 6 p.m. He went into his house and bolted it from inside.
At the trial all the witnesses with one voice reiterated the story that has been set out at the companymencement of this judgment.
All the eye witnesses were thus closely related to Kashiram.
2, 5, 7 and 9 are the sisters son, wife, brothers wife and brother respectively of Kashiram, while P. Ws.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
It arises out of these facts Three persons, named.
PC denied the prosecution case.
