Dr. O. Maheshwari PW14 held post mortem examination on the dead body of Ramvati and the said report is Ex.
They were living jointly.
One Gopi Lal had two sons namely Lakhan deceased and Girdhari Lal PW2 .
P22, on the dead body of Lakhan.
At about 5,00 p.m., Ramvati deceased , Maya Bai PW1 and their mother in law Dipya Bai were sitting in their companyrt yard in front of their house.
Dr. Devender Kumar Jain PW15 was also examined to prove the post mortem examination report Ex.
The defence of the appellants accused was of total denial.
4 and 5 are their nephews.
It is alleged by the prosecution that on 14 11 1981, the women folk from both the sides had some quarrel.
They also denied to have caused any injury to the prosecution witnesses, The appellant, therefore, prayed that they are innocent and they be acquitted .
P1 on the information given by Maya Bai PW1 .
All of a sudden, the appellants who were armed with deadly weapons, came to their companyrt yard.
After companypleting the investigation, all the appellants were put up for trial for the offence of companymitting murders of Lakhan deceased and Ramvati deceased and causing injuries to the prosecution witnesses punishable under sections 148, 302 and 324 read with sections 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Appellant Nos.
He was then surrounded by the appellants and suddenly the appellant No.1 Shanker Lal gave a blow of Farsa on his head.
Sessions Judge has enumerated as many as 13 circumstances which in his opinion go against the prosecution case and companysistent with these findings, the Addl.
The appellants were put up for trial for the offences punishable under sections 148, 302 and 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for companymittee murders of Lakhan Pal and Ramvati and also causing injuries to Girdhari Lal PW2 , Omkar PW3 , Satish Kumar PW4 and Rajender Kumar Pw6 .
She was also assaulted by the appellants with lathis.
It is the case of the prosecution that Shanker Lal, appellant No.1 was armed with Farsa, Kalu Ram appellant No.4 was armed with an axe and rest of the appellants were carrying lathis.
In the mean times Girdhari Lal PW2 , Omkar FW3 , Satish Kumar PW4 and Rajender Kumar PW6 also rushed to the scene of incident to save Lakhan and Ramvati from the said assault.
At about the same time, a Bus was passing by the said road and the companyductor of the said bus Faquir Mohd.
Lakhan fell down on the ground and all the accused thereafter started beating with lathis.
The learned Addl, Sessions judge on appraisal of the evidence on record disbelieved all the eye witnesses principally on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased and are on inimical terms with the appellants accused .
All sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
At that times Shanker Lal armed with Farsa, Kalu Ram armed with an axe and rest of the appellants armed with lathis came to their companyrt yard.
Seeing all the appellants in the companyrt yard, Lakhan deceased went to them.
Seeing this ghastly assault on Lakhan, Ramvati, the wife of Lakhan rushed towards him to save him from the said assault.
Sessions Judge for the order of acquittal.
The High Court in its judgment dated July 24, 1986 on re appraisal of the evidence on record did number agree with the reasons given by the learned Addl.
According to them, they were falsely implicated in the case.
Ramvati deceased was the wife of Lakhan deceased .
At about the same time, Lakhan deceased was in the companyrt yard and he was unloading his bullock cart in Khalian.
S.I. Pateria PW17 on receipt of the said sanaha report reached the place of incident with his staff and recorded the Dehati Nalishi Ex.
PW13 seeing a crowd rushed to the Police Station Piparia which is about two and half kilometers away from the place of incident and gave a sanaha report Ex.14 at about 5.15 p.m, He only referred to the quarrel but numberdetails were given.
It is the case of the prosecution that the appellants have also assaulted these witnesses with weapons in their hands.
It is against this judgment and order of companyviction passed by the High Court on 24 7 1986, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
The State of Madhya Pradesh aggrieved by the order of acquittal preferred an appeal to the High Court under Section 378 1 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Codes challenging the legality and companyrectness of the order of acquittal.
At that time, deceased Lakhan was unloading his bullock cart in the Khalian, Seeing all these appellants around the women folk, Lakhan deceased rushed to the companyrt yard and thereupon all the appellants surrounded him.
Appellants 1 to 3 and 6 namely Shanker Lal, Girdhari Lal, Lakhan and Chhote Lal are the sons of one Manbodh Singh.
Sessions Judge acquitted all the appellants.
However, the said Kalu Ram instead of keeping his word got the said field mutated in the name of Suman Bai, It is this act of Kalu Ram, the appellant No.4, had led to ill feeling between the parties and it is stated that on report of Gopi Lal proceedings against the mutation were innitiated and Lakhan deceased was looking after the said litigation.
It is alleged by the prosecution that Gopi Lal had mortgaged his field with Suman Bai wife of appellant No.4 Kalu Ram and it was agreed that the loan would be repaid within two years and thereupon the said field would be returned to Gopi Lal.
Mayabai PW1 is the wife of Girdhari Lal PW2 .
They were chit chatting.
Satish Kumar PW4 and Rajender Kumar PW6 are the sons of Lakhan while Omkar PW3 is brother in law of Girdhari Lal.
Kalu Ram the appellant No.4 gave an axe blow on the waist of Lakhan.
The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seventeen witnesses out of which Maya Bai PW1 , Girdhari Lal PW2 , Omkar PW3 , Satish Kumar PW4 and Rajender Kumar PW 6 were the eye witnesses.
P.S I. Pateria PW 17 during investigation recorded the statements of some witnesses On 15 11 1981, S.I. Pateria PW17 prepared an inquest Panchnama on the dead bodies of Lakhan and Ramvati and sent them for post mortem examination, During investigation, PSI Pateria PW17 recovered some incriminating articles pursuant to the statements made by the accused.
The evidence of the eye witness is totally false and they have implicated them accused out of enmity.
The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution does number lend support to the evidence of the eye witnesses in as much as there are various discrepancies in their evidence.
P. KURDUKAR, J. This criminal appeal is filed by six appellants challenging the legality and companyrectness of the judgment and order of companyviction date 24th July, 1986 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
Under the impugned orders the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of appellants on 7 12 1982 by the Addl, Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad.
The prosecution in order to prove various Panchanamas including recovery of weapons examined five witnesses.
The learned Addl.
