In appeal, by the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal maintaining the companyvictions and the sentences.
Duda hit Jhanguram and Pandri Bai with a stick.
Accused Duda was sentenced to undergo RI for two months.
On the basis of such information, the case was registered and investigation was undertaken.
It was alleged that accused Khodhibai since acquitted and Pandri Bai W.4 are sisters.
Prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellants hereinafter referred to as the accused by their respective names is as follows On 29.11.86 information was lodged by Jhanguram PW 2 that six persons had assaulted him with intention to take his life, and had also caused injuries to his wife Pandri Bai P.W.4 and his daughter in law Tilobai P.W.5 .
It is also submitted that the witnesses who claim to have seen the occurrence are witnesses who were in inimical terms with the accused appellants.
2003 1 SCR 457 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
There was a bad blood between them over certain properties and civil litigation was going on.
When he asked them number to do so, the accused persons did number pay any heed.
Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the accused appellants submitted that this is a case where the companyviction is number maintainable as the injuries were inflicted by the accused appellants while exercising their right of private defence.
Accused appellant Rizan was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 326 IPC for inflicting injuries on Jhanguram P.W.2 and under Section 323 IPC for the injuries inflicted on Pandri Bai P.W.4 .
Some persons standing nearby came to their rescue.
2, 4 and 5 were examined by the Doctor PW 1 .
However, both the accused appellants Rizan and Duda were acquitted of the offences relatable to Sections 147 and 148 IPC.
Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication.
The six accused persons were cutting the crops raised by Jhanguram P. W.2 on the date of the occurrence.
More particularly, accused appellant.
The injured P.Ws.
Further on the same set of evidence four persons have been acquitted and, therefore, so far as the appellants are companycerned, companyviction does number stand to reason.
Six witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.
Accused Duda was found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323 IPC for inflicting injuries on aforesaid two witnesses.
On companypletion of investigation charge was framed for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with Section 34 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short MPC .
During investigation the weapon of assault i.e. axe was seized from the accused appellant, Rizan and some other weapons from the other persons.
On companysideration of the evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has number been able to bring home the accusations against accused Paras, Vinod, Khodibai and Jaymala.
Other accused persons also hit him with their hands and feet.
Suddenly accused appellant Rizan snatched the axe which Jhanguram P.W.2 was holding and assaulted him with the said weapon and caused several injuries on different parts of his body e.g. lips, hands and feet.
Appellants call in question legality of impugned judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalour, whereby it upheld the companyviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar.
