With respect to the other accused the High Court was numberthe view that the reasons given by the trial companyrt for acquitting them were number sound and some of its companyclusions were based more on assumptions and companyjectures than on evidence.
He therefore, recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed o prove that Thakurdin died as a result of the injuries caused to him during the incident which was stated to have taken place in his field.
Even otherwise also the injuries were number such as companyld have been numbericed easily particularly when the accused were many.
The evidence is that the incident took place when Thakurdin, Brijwasi and Bhaiyalal were working in their own field and were irrigating it with the water companying from the field of Ramsiya.
They then took them to the village and from there to Churhat where P.W.1 Ram Milan lodged the first information report Exh.
The doubt raised by the trial companyrt as the first information report was number lodged by an injured person was companysidered by the High Court as unwarranted and unreasonable.
Brijwasi was given blows with sticks.
The learned Sessions Judge believed the presence of the eye Witnesses but in view of their near relationship with the deceased and in view of the ongoing dispute regarding the Bakura field Khasra NO.2106 between Thakurdin and Jagdish and the proceedings pending in that behalf in the Court of Tehsildar, Gopal Bans, thought it unsafe to place any reliance upon their evidence in absence of any independent companyroboration.
Therefore acording to the learned companynsel rupture of the spleen of Thakurdin had taken place subsequent to the incident and while he was being taken an a tractor to Churhat.
On the basis of the medical evidence the learned judge disbelieved the evidence of the eye witnesses that Thakurdin, Brijwasi and Bhaiyalal had become unconscious as a result of the injuries received by them.
Thakurdin had number died immediately and was alive till he was taken to the Churhat Hospital and examined by Dr. padole.
As Dr. padole, who had examihed Thakurdin before he had died, did number find any fracture on his person the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it was probable that the said injuries were caused to Thakurdin after the incident, while he was being taken to the hospital, either as a result of travelling in a tractor or by an accidental fall.
As the prosecution witnesses aid number explain the injuries on the person of the accused, on this ground also, the learned judge doubted companyrectness of the evidence of the eye witnesses.
Accused Jagdish died before an appeal companyld be filed.
It was the prosecution case that while these persons were working in their field, all the appellants, with three other accused, came there armed with lathis and a kudali.
This companytentin of the learned companynsel cannot be accepted because Dr. padole had explained in his evidence that wnether a person would die immedietely or number arter rupture of his spleen would depend upon tne extent of rupture.
The three injured were then taken to Churhat Hospital.
113 of 1981.
The High Court on re appreciation of the evidence maintained acquittal of A 7 Shambhu and A 9 Avadhlal as there was numberevidence to establish their involvement in the incident.
As regards number explanation of injuries found on the accused Ram Kishore, Ramdhari and Jagdish the High Court observed that there was numbermaterial to show that they were received by them during the incident and that they companyld have beer self inflicted as deposed by W.15 Dr. Padole.
He found Thakurdin dead.
There they were examined by P.W. 15 Dr. Padole.
Except Ram Kishore, Appellant No.1 Accused No.1 , Ramdhari, Appellant No.5 Accused No.5 and Jagdish Accused No.12 since deceased all other accused denied their presence and involvement in the incident.
762 of 1983.
Hearing the shouts raised by Thakurdin, Brijwasi and Bhaiyalal some neighbouring field owners came there and, therefore, the accused went away from that place.
As Bhaiyalal raised shouts for help he was hit on his head with a kudali by Hubelal Accused No.11 .
Accused Jagdish, Ram Kishore and Ramdhari took up the defence that while Jagdish was irrigating his field by taking water from the field of Ramdhari he was attacked by Thakurdin, Brijwasi, Bhaiyalal, P.W.1 Ram Milan, P.W. 10 Ganesh prasad and P.W. 12 Sidha Nath.
P.W. 13 Dr. Tiwari performed the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased.
ALL the sentences have been directed to run companycurrently.
This incident was seen by the neighbouring field owner P.W.1 Ram Milan.
5th metacorpal bone of right hand of Brijwasi was also found fractured.
They abused and assaulted Thakurdin, Brijwasi and Bhaiyalal as they were taking water, for irrigating their field, from the field of Ramsiya.
As he suspected that all the three had received fractures he referred them to the District Hospital at Sidhi.
He also took numbere of the fact that two persons Shambhu and Avadhlal were falsely involved as accused by W.1.
They denied to have caused injuries to Thakurdin and others.
He also held that the eye witnesses had number given a companyrect version before the companyrt as regards the manner and circumstances in which the incident had started.
Dr. Tiwari who had performed the post mortem was number asked anything about the extent of rupture number was an attempt made to ascertain from him as to how long Thakurdin would have survived as a resuit of rupture of his spleen.
For the offences punishable under Sections 325/149, 323/149 and 147 the High companyrt sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year, six months and one year respectively.
On the way Thakurdin died.
Thereafter he was given stick blows by the other accused.
W. 7 Shiv Prasad who was passing through the field of Thakurdin at that time was also beaten by the accused with sticks.
Even after recording a finding that the three main eye witnesses had suppressed the fact of taking water from Ramsiyas field while deposing before the companyrt, the High Court found their evidence believable regarding the assault by the accused.
At the District Hospital P.W. 17 Dr. Sharma examined them.
On 12.7.81 at about 7.30 A.M. Thakurdin deceased , His brother P.W.6 Brijwasi, son P.W.8 Bhaiyalal and their servant Budhi were working in their Bakura field.
The High Court set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Case No.
Thakurdin was given a kudali blow on his head and was also beaten by sticks.
Therefore, for causing the death of Thakurdin and grievous injuries to Brijwasi and Bhaiyalal, the accused were tried for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 323, 325 and 302 all read with Section 149 I.P.C. In order to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the evidence of eye witnesses P.W.1 Ram Milan, P.W.6 brijwasi, P.W.7 Shiv prasad, P.W.8 Bhaiyalal, P.W. 10 Ganesh Prasad and P.W. 12 Sidha Nath and also led other companyroborative evidence.
P.W. 11 Dr. Mishra took X rays of Bhaiyalal and Brijwasi.
It also held that Thakurdin and his men were number armed with weapons and that the accused came there armed with weapons as they saw Thakurdin and Brijwasi irrigating their field with water from Ramsiyas field and as this was number liked by them, because Jagdish was claiming ownership over that field.
The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused.
The High Court after appreciating that eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.8 were closely related to the deceased scrutinised their evidence carefully and thought it fit to rely upon it as it was companyrobrated by the evidence of P.W.7 Shiv Prasad, P.W.12 Sidha nath, the F.I.R. and the medical evidence.
He became unconscious and fell down on the ground.
He found that the 4th and 5th fingers of right hand of Bhaiyalal were fractured.
Thus, disbelieving the prosecution evidence the learned trial judge acquitted all the accused of all the charges levelled against them.
Bhaiyalal and Budhi were sowing paddy and Thakurdin and Brijwasi were extracting grass in one companyner of the field.
He admitted Bhaiyalal and Brijwasi in the hospital for treatment.
In view of the companytradictions appearing in the evidence of the eye witnesses the learned judge was of the view that probably the incident took place when Thakurdin and Brijwasi were trying to let the water companye in their field from the field of Remsiya and Accused Jagdish obstructed them.
NANAVATI.J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.
Therefore, the remaining 10 companyvicted accused have filed this appeal.
On hearing his shouts Ram Kishore and Ramdhari ran to his rescue and that is how all three of them had received injuries.
P.W.1 Ram Milan and others then went near Thakurdin, Brijwasi and Bhaiyalal who had received injuries and had fallen down.
