Ram Gopal, who was at that time sitting in the house of Hari Krishna P.W. 5 immediately came rushing to the place where Lal Singh was.
On the other Mr. I. N. Shroff, learned Counsel for the State pointed out the findings of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court wherein the ,so called companytradictions in the evidence of P.W. 1 have been duly numbered.
Balmukund and Ram Gopal were numberorious gundas who companystituted a grave menace to the people of Jaisinagar.
Mr. Sadhu Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants who appeared as amicus curiae urged that Babulal and Butti had also been companyvicted by the Sessions Judge for the same offences as the appellants and on the same evidence.
In all fourteen accused, including the appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, the allegations being that all of them formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the companymon object of intentionally murdering with dangerous weapons two persons Balmukund and his son Ram Gopal, and of attempting to murder Lal Singh, P.W. 1, son of Balmukund and that they in prosecution of the companymon object caused the death of the above two persons and also attempted to murder Lal Singh.
The benefit of doubt, the companynsel pointed out, has been given by the High Court to Babulal and Butti because numberovert act had been attributed to them either by Lal Singh or P.W. 5 at the earliest occasion.
He further pointed out that P.W. 1 sustained very serious injuries and his presence on the spot at the time of the incident companyld number be doubted.
It must be numbered that numberinjury due to gun shot has been spoken to by P.W. 19 regarding Ram Gopal.
This plea of alibi has been companycurrently disbelieved by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of Lai Singh, P.W. 1, Benibai P.W. 3 and her husband Hari Krishna P.W. 5.
The companynsel further pointed out that both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have rejected the false plea of alibi set up by the appellants.
The case of the prosecution was as follows Ram Gopal and Lal Singh were sons of Balmukund.
The post mortem certificate regarding Balmukund showed that he had received three incised wounds and gun shot injury.
In view of the sentence of imprisonment for life passed for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, the sentences in respect of other offences have been directed to run companycurrently.
3 and 6.
According to the doctor the injury to the occipital bone and brain and the gun shot injury were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death either individually or companylectively.
Appellants Nos.
P. 78 is the certificate issued by the doctor regarding the injuries found, on Lal Singh.
Ram Gopal and Lal.
The first and the second appellants are brothers appellants Nos.
P.W. 26 has number numbered any injury on the thigh of Lal Singh.
But the main case of the prosecution was sought to be rested on the evidence of P.W. 1.
Lal Singh, who was hiding within the house of P.W. 5 and watching the attack made on his brother, was seen by the accused and he was dealt blows by Katarnas by some of the accused including the 6th appellant.
P. 78.
But all the fourteen accused followed them and attempted to break open the front door of the house of P.W. 5.
The post mortem certificate issued by P.W. 19 regarding Ram Gopal shows that he had received as many as five injuries.
2 was likely to cause death and companylectively all the three injuries were such that in the ordinary companyrse of nature death may be caused.
The doctor had also stated that the injuries Nos.
But the doctor has number referred to any gun shot injury on the thigh in the certificate Ex.
2, 4, 5 and 6.
Regarding Lal Singh P.W. 1, Dr. Dutta, P.W. 26, has given wound certificate wherein he has stated that he suffered three injuries.
5 had a Farsa and the others had Katarnas in their hands.
All the accused pleaded number guilty and they also set up a defence of alibi.
The report of the incident was made by P.W. 2, a neighbour on the same night on the basis that he heard some altercation and the numberse of gun firing and that Ram Gopal was crying for help.
According to the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of severe cutting of large blood vessels.
According to the doctor injury No.
This report admittedly did number companytain any details regarding the incident relating to the attack as P.W. 2 was number an eye witness.
But the High Court did number accept the prosecution evidence so far as those two accused were companycerned and had acquitted them.
Therefore, the case against the appellants also should have been dealt with and treated in the same manner and the High Court has acted erroneously in companyvicting the appellants alone.
All the fourteen accused, including the appellants armed with dangerous weapons like Farsa, guns and Katarnas, on the night of October 30, 1963 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and came in a body to Commit the murder of Lal Singh, Balmukund and Ram GopaL Lal Singh was sitting in the house of Imrat Joshi and when he was just starting to go to his house, he was obstructed by some of the accused including the appellants Nos.
At that time the appellants Nos.
On seeing the said accused approaching him menacingly, Lal Singh raised an alarm and shouted for his brother Ram Gopal to companye to his assistance.
4, 5 and 6 are also brothers.
The first and the second appellants fired their guns towards Ram Gopal and when he fell down, he was given severe blows with Katarnas by some of the other accused including the appellants Nos.
1 and 2 fired gun shots.
Singh ran into the house of P.W. 5 to take shelter.
But the doctor in his evidence has stated that as the companydition of Lal Singh when he was brought to the hospital was very precarious and intravenous saline injection companyld number be given, the said injection was given by piercing a needle into his thigh.
He was also shot at by the first and second appellants and he sustained a gun shot wound in his right thigh.
1 and 2 had pistols, appellant No.
In the meanwhile some of the accused had gained entrance through the back of the house and all the accused began to attack Lal Singh, Ram Gopal and Balmukund.
P.C. The ten accused who had been companyvicted including the appellants, challenged their companyviction before the High Court.
One of the injuries had cut the occipital bone and brain.
374 of 1964 companyfirming their companyviction for offences under Sections 148, 452, 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. as well as the sentences imposed for those offences.
They were armed with deadly weapons and the second appellant in particular was armed with a pistol.
1 and 5 were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death either individually or companylectively.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the six appellants is directed against the judgment and order dated May 3, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
There were also certain other offences alleged under the Indian Arms Act.
As a result of the injuries sustained, Ram Gopal died on the spot.
So far as the appellants are companycerned, their companyviction, as well as the sentences have been upheld, though, the High Court acquitted the first appellant of the offence under Section 25B of the Indian Arms Act.
for which also he was companyvicted by the Sessions Judge.
He further pointed out that according to the two Courts those companytradictions were only on minor matters without affecting the truth of the evidence of P.W. 1 on material particulars.
As the evidence against all the accused was companymon and as the same has number been acted upon so far as the accused who have been acquitted are companycerned, the appellants also should get the benefit of doubt in the circumstances.
