As the person was profusely bleeding PW 7 sent information to the police station, Balwada, which was entered in the General Diary of the police station.
In the companyrse of the trial prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses besides exhibiting a large number of documents.
We have also companysidered the evidence of the key witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as the several documents exhibited in the companyrse of the trial.
Thereafter, the victim was brought to the hospital where he was declared dead.
The short case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.1991 Head Constable, Mukesh Kumar PW 7 , of Police Station Balwada, while returning from the Court where he had gone to attend the hearing of a case, found a person lying unconscious on the road side on Indore road.
PW 4 also deposed that there was a red companyour Motorcycle on which the persons were seated.
We have heard Shri S.K. Bhattacharya, learned companynsel for the appellants and Shri C.D. Singh, learned companynsel on behalf of the respondent State.
At the companyclusion of the trial, while accused Chhotu was exonerated of the charges levelled, the accused appellants have been companyvicted as aforesaid and sentenced to undergo, inter alia, rigorous imprisonment for life.
PW 5, Mukesh, is the brother of the deceased.
Both the appellants are aggrieved by the companymon order dated 20.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the companyviction of the appellants under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed has been affirmed.
According to this witness, after the deceased Pradeep and PW 1 had companypleted their companyversation, the deceased had left towards Indore road alongwith accused Gopal and Manish.
The deposition of PW 4 further indicates that though she companyld number identify any of the alleged assailants in police custody, she had identified accused Baliya and Gopal in the companyrt.
However, the brother of the deceased, one Mukesh PW 5 , asked for the scooter and as the house of PW 1 was near the Gayatri Market both of them i.e. PW 1 and PW 5 Mukesh rode the scooter together up to a certain point.
Accused Manish died in the companyrse of the trial whereas the remaining accused including the two appellants companytested the charges framed against them.
The offences being triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was companymitted to the companyrt of the learned Special Sessions Judge, West Nimar Mandaleshwar M.P. Charges under the aforesaid Sections of the Penal Code were framed against all the accused to which they pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
As there were injuries on the person of the deceased, PW 14, S.S. Tomar Inspector of Police registered an offence under Section 302 and took up investigation of the case.
This was at about 5 p.m. When they had reached Chor Bavadi she saw three persons quarreling and one person being stabbed.
On companypletion of investigation, the two appellants alongwith companyaccused Manish since dead and Chhotu acquitted were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 120 B read with Section 302 IPC.
The said companyviction and sentence has been maintained by the High Court in the two separate appeals filed by the appellants giving rise to the present appeals.
Thereafter, PW 1 went to his house and shortly thereafter he came to know from one Satya Vijaya that the deceased Pradeep had been stabbed by somebody with a knife.
PW 3, Asha, examined as an eye witness was declared hostile.
2001/2008 has been filed by accused Baliya whereas Criminal Appeal No.2002/2008 has been filed by companyaccused, Gopal.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Criminal Appeal No.
PW 4 Gangabai who was examined as another eye witness of the occurrence had deposed that on the day of the occurrence she alongwith PW 3 were returning from the factory after the days work.
