They flatly denied that they had weapons with them at the time of the incident.
444 of 1987.
The fact that as many as six accused had received injuries during the incident cannot be disputed in view of the medical evidence on record.
Ratan A 5 first give a blow with this pharsi on the head of Anna and Vishnu A 2 gave a blow with pharsi on the waist of Anna.
All the eight accused challenged their companyviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Sessions Judge discharged the accused against whom charge sheet was filed later as he did number find sufficient evidence to proceed against them.
the eye witnesses had falsely implicated before the police 13 more persons, as disclosed by the fact that the police did number think it fit to file any charge sheet against all of them and six accused were discharged by the Sessions Court 3.
the eye witnesses had tried to suppress the genesis of the incidence 2.
It held that the prosecution has failed to establish that A 1 to A 8 had companymitted the offences for which they were tried and companyvicted by the trial companyrt.
Thereafter all the accused started beating other members of Annas party.
All the injuries received by Jala A 1 and Vishnu A 2 were number minor.
All the fourteen accused were companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions.
Sardara A 7 gave an axe blow on the hand of Kana Vishnu A 2 gave a pharsi blow on the head of Madhu.
It, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt and acquitted them.
Ratna A 5 then gave a blow with pharsi on the head of Kana.
They were bleeding injuries.
all the eye witnesses have made similar improvements while giving their evidence in the companyrt 5.
all the eye witnesses denied to have made statements on 28.3.1986 and 4.7.1986 with reference to which they were companytradicted during their cross examination 4.
Madu died while he was being taken to the hospital.
Vishnu A 2 had received a lacerated wound on his head.
In respect of this very incident vishnu A 2 lodged an oral report with the police at Kishanganj Police Station at about 9.00 P.M. In pursuance of that report Hardayal Singh, who was incharge of that Police Station, went to Village Masiniya.
for all these reasons the companytention raised by Mr. Jain that two importance should be given to those companytradiction which have been proved on the basis of the statements recorded on 28.3.1986 and 4.7.1986, cannot be accepted and numberfault can be found with the findings recorded by the High Court that the eye witnesses Sua, Mohan, Panna, Arjun and Rukam had tried to implicate some innocent persons also and in order to make their evidence acceptable by companyrt had made companysistent improvements while giving their evidence in the companyrt.
On account of the injuries caused to them Anna and Kana died on the spot.
1 to 8 Accused 1 to 8 , have filed this appeal, by special leave of this Court, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in B. B. Criminal Appeal No.
Vishnu A 2 , Ratna A 5 and Sardara A 7 were also companyvicted under Section 148 IPC and the rest were companyvicted under Section 147 IPC.
444 of 1987 in the High Court of Rajasthan.
When Arjun PW 7 was questioned regarding the statement dated 28.3.1986 recorded by the additional Superintendent of Police he merely stated that the did number remember whether it was recorded or number.
Vishnu A 2 and Ratan A 5 were armed with pharsis, Sardara A 7 was armed with an axe and others were armed with sticks.
the independent eye witnesses Bholu PW 4 , Sayar PW 5 , Bhura PW 6 and Devi Singh PW 13 did number support the prosecution but supported the defence version Balu PW 3 and Bhoma PW 10 who are the real brothers of the deceased Anna and who had also claimed to have seen the incidence did number support the prosecution.
As a result of the blows given by the accused, Sua PW 1 , Mohan PW 2 , Arjun PW 7 , Punna PW 8 and Ratna PW 9 received injuries.
He recorded the companyplaint of Sua PW 1 at about 11.00 P.M. The police first filed a charge sheet against A 1 to A 8 but after making further investigation they filed another charge sheet against six more persons.
the eye witnesses have falsely denied that the accused had received any injury at their hands 6.
The learned Judge proceeded against A 1 to A 8 and companyvicted them mainly on the basis of the evidence of Sua PW 1 , Mohan PW 2 , Arjun PW 7 , Punna PW 6 and Rutna PW 9 .
They were assaulted while they were passing through the Nalla situated near the field of Ganpat Chita.
NANAVATI, J. The widows of the three victims, who were alleged to have been murdered by respondent Nos.
1 to 8 assaulted Anna Rawat, his bother Kana, his sons Madhu, Arjun, Mohan and Sua one Punna and Ratna while they were returning from their fields to the village in the evening of 11.2.1986.
The State has number thought it fit to file appeal against the decision of the High Court.
All the injured eye witnesses who were with deceased Anna have denied to have caused any injury to any of the accused.
