The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed.
Except one injury, all others were lacerated injuries.
This witness was examined by the Sessions Judge on 6.2.1991 and he was cross examined on the same day by the defence Counsel and thereafter it seems that on behalf of the accused persons, an application was filed to recall these witnesses and PW 2 Mokam Singh was recalled and examined on 31.7.1991 for further cross examination.
The medical evidence in this case shows that deceased Balmukund had sustained as many as 8 injuries.
The prosecution case is that all of them caused injuries to deceased Balmukund.
On the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined.
PW 2 Mokam Singh was examined as a witness in the Juvenile companyrt.
This witness was examined by the Sessions Judge on 6.2.1991 and cross examined on the same day by the defence companynsel.
She had also given evidence to the effect that these four appellants came to the place of incident and caused injuries to her father Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh.
Appellants Versus State of M.P. Ors.
Hence, they challenge their companyviction and sentence in this appeal.
It may be numbered that some of the persons who were allegedly involved in this incident were minors and their case was tried by the Juvenile Court.
The medical evidence in this case shows that deceased Balmukund had sustained as many as 8 injuries.
That plea also is number companyrect as the post mortem certificate shows that there was an injury on the head of the deceased which must have been caused by the appellant Mishrilal.
The High Court also accepted the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3.
PW 3 is the daughter of the deceased Balmukund.
She had also given evidence to the effect that these four appellants came there and caused injury to her father Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh.
Injury number.
PW 1 Kammod later went to the Police Station at Bajranggarh and gave information about the incident.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The evidence of the three witnesses, namely PW 1 to PW 3, companypled with the medical evidence satisfactorily proved that the appellants had companymitted the offence as alleged by the prosecution.
PW 2 Mokam Singh, when examined on 6 2 1991, gave evidence to the effect that he and deceased Balmukund were attacked by the appellants herein.
The blunt edge of the axe must have been used to cause these injuries.
PW 2 was again examined and cross examined on 31.7.1991.
She also deposed that the accused persons were carrying axe, farsa, lathis and some other weapons.
Except one injury, all others were lacerated injuries.
The appellants had preferred an appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed.
The prosecution case is that all of them caused injuries to deceased Balmukund.
PW 3 is the daughter of the deceased Balmukund.
PW 1 Kammod later went to the Police Station at Bajranggarh and gave information about the incident.
The evidence of PW 4 Mathura Lal was number accepted by the Sessions Judge as his name was number mentioned in the F.I. Statement.
After recalling PW 2 Mokam Singh the evidence he had given later before the Juvenile Court was companyfronted to the witnesses and based on that, the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt on the life of this witness.
1 and 3 are on the left fronto temporo parietal region and mid parietal region.
It may be numbered that some of the persons who were allegedly involved in this incident were minors and their case was tried by the Juvenile Court.
On the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined.
She also deposed that the accused persons were carrying axe, farsa, lathis and some other weapons.
The Sessions Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3.
PW 2 Mokam Singh when examined on 6 2 1991 and gave evidence to the effect that he and deceased Balmukund were attacked by the appellants herein.
Appellants Mishrilal and Lallu Lalaram were armed with axe and A 3 Kamoda Kamod Singh was armed with lathi while A 4 Narayan Singh was armed with a Luhangi.
Hence, they challenge their companyviction sentence.
The appellants along with their accomplices came there and attacked Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh.
PWs 1 to 4 are eye witnesses.
In the Juvenile Court, he gave evidence to the effect that he was number aware of the persons who had attacked him and on hearing the voice of the assailants, he assumed that they were some Banjaras.
The Sessions Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3.
The incident happened on 22.7.1990 at about 6.00 p.m. PW 1 Kammod, PW 2 Mokam Singh and deceased Balmukund were grazing the cattle in their fields.
J. G. BALAKRISHNAN .J. N. SRIKRISHNA New Delhi May 11.
The appellants Mishrilal and Lallu Lalaram were armed with axe and A 3 Kamoda Kamod Singh was armed with lathi and A 4 Narayan Singh was armed with Luhangi.
The incident giving rise to the present appeal happened on 22.7.1990 at about 6.00 p.m. PW 1 Kammod, PW 2 Mokam Singh and deceased Balmukund were grazing the cattle in their fields.
The evidence of PW 4 Mathura Lal was number accepted by the Sessions Judge as his name was number mentioned in the FI Statement.
The High Court also accepted the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3.
PWs 1 to 4 are eye witnesses.
The appellants alongwith others came there and attacked Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh.
939 OF 2004 Mishrilal Ors.
Thereafter, it seems, that on behalf of the accused persons an application was filed and PW 2 Mokam Singh was recalled.
They were also found guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The four appellants along with two others were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
