82 of 1992 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior.
The Additional Session Judge, by judgment dated 02.04.1992, companyvicted all the accused persons under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 452 and 325 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment RI for 1 year under Section 148 of IPC, life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and RI for 2 years for the offences punishable under Section 452 and Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC.
Heard Mr. Lakhan Singh Chauhan, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants accused and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent State.
During altercation, Badri since deceased inflicted a lathi blow on the head of accused Badri and, thereafter, he ran away from the spot.
Gourabai PW 5 the injured was also referred for medical examination.
157/1989 against the appellants herein under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 452 and 325 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short IPC .
Brief facts As per the prosecution, on 09.09.1989, at about 12 numbern, two companys belonging to Badri since deceased entered into the field of Ramjilal and Badri accused , who is having the same name as that of the deceased and damaged the crops standing in the field which resulted into an altercation between them.
82 of 1992 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the appeal and companyfirmed the judgment dated 02.04.1992 passed by the IInd Additional Session Judge, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh in Session Case No.
His examination report is Ex.
Both the injuries were caused by some hard and blunt object.
It is further seen from her evidence that her injured son was taken to the Police Station and it was he who made a companyplaint about the occurrence and from there he was taken to the hospital for treatment, however, he died on the way to hospital.
Thereafter, Badri since deceased was immediately rushed to the hospital for medical examination and treatment but he died on the way.
She specifically named the persons including the present appellants who inflicted fatal blows on the chest of her son.
P/7 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
On the very same day, i.e. on 09.09.1989, Badri since deceased along with his mother and son Narayan PW 11 lodged an FIR at Police Chowki Amol Patha based on which Crime No.
Gourabai PW 5 , in her evidence, has stated that their companys had damaged the crops standing in the field of Badri.
Roshan gave a lathi blow on his neck and Badri accused gave a lathi blow on his left cheek.
Thereafter, the appellants herein along with Ramjilal, Badri, Roshan and Brijmohan carrying luhangi lethal weapon and lathis in their hands reached the house of Badri since deceased .
During the above said incident, Gourabai PW 5 , mother of the deceased, rushed to save her son whereupon the accused Badri gave a lathi blow on her right hand due to which she also sustained injuries.
On opening of chest, fractures were found on the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rib.
According to her, the incident took place near their house and the fields of the accused are also situated opposite to her house.
The above said acts of the accused resulted into severe injuries on the body of the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
About one litre of blood had companylected in pleura cavity.
It is number in dispute that PW 5 also sustained injuries while saving her son and was present at the spot.
She also explained that when accused Badri was trying to take away their companys to the cattle pond, her son Badri since deceased reached there and there was heated altercation between them.
The High Court set aside the companyviction of rest of the appellants therein, namely, Ramjilal, Roshan Lal and Brij Mohan under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC while affirming the companyviction under Sections 148, 452 and 325 read with Section 149 of IPC and modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
Narayan PW 11 , son of the deceased, is also an eye witness to the incident.
She was medically examined by Dr. K. Goel PW 14 , who submitted the report which states as under He had seen two companytusions.
Also, as per the medical evidence, the injuries received by him at the instance of the present appellants were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary companyrse of nature.
1 herein has served 7 years, 4 months and 18 days in jail and Chintu Mahte Appellant No.
Ramjilal and Chintu Mahte gave lathi blows on his neck and left rib respectively.
Both the chambers were empty.
The appeal in respect of accused Badri was abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.
157/1989.
Questioning the companyviction and sentence, Ramswaroop and Chintu Mahte, the appellants herein filed the above appeal.
After companypletion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 452 and 325 read with Section 149 of IPC and the case was companymitted to the Court of IInd Additional Session Judge, Shivpuri and numbered as Session Case No.
By impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2005, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of accused Ramswaroop and Chintu Mahte appellants herein under all the charges.
1 herein gave a luhangi blow on the left rib of the deceased.
It is the further case of the prosecution that Chintu Mahte Appellant No.
In the re examination he has submitted that the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report Ex.
Injury No.2 was found simple in nature.
Even if we eschew the evidence of PW 11, as observed earlier, there is numberreason to disbelieve the version of injured eye witness PW 5 , mother of the deceased.
There is numberserious dispute about unlawful assembly by the accused persons and initial incident of causing damage of crops by the companys of the companyplainant.
She explained that after entering into her house, the accused persons gave lathi blows to the deceased and when she intervened, she was also beaten up and her left hand was broken.
Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within twenty four hours.
Inasmuch as PW 5 being an injured witness, who, in fact, tried to save her son at the hands of the accused, after going into her entire statement, we companycur with the companyclusion arrived at by the trial Court as well as the High Court insofar as the present appellants are companycerned.
He witnessed the incident and narrated the whole story alleging the role played by each one of the accused but his statement was recorded after 14 days and numberexplanation was offered for the same.
Finally, learned companynsel for the appellants while pointing out that Ramswaroop Appellant No.
The only point for companysideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has established its case against the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt?
2 herein dragged him from his house and Ramswaroop Appellant No.
It is also clear from the materials placed by the prosecution that after the altercation in the field, all the accused armed with lathis and weapons in their hands chased the deceased and entered into his house.
The prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of the injured eye witness Gourabai, who is numbere else than the mother of the deceased, who also sustained injuries while saving her son at the hands of the accused.
Pleura was also found torn.
Ramswaroop and Chintu Mahte have caused fatal blows due to which Badri succumbed to injuries while on the way to hospital.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Additional Session Judge, all the accused persons preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
She was examined as PW 5.
Since the present appeal relates to Ramswaroop and Chintu Mahte appellants herein , there is numberneed to traverse the role of all the other accused.
12/1989 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325 and 452 of IPC was registered against the accused persons.
Sathasivam,J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
The middle and upper part of left lung was also found torn.
