It gave him the benefit of doubt for the following four reasons Though the occurrence took place on 18.3.1984, the statements of three eye witnesses, namely, Banmali PW1 , Dhani Ram PW3 and Michhua PW4 were recorded only on 6.4.1984 and the evidence of two other eye witnesses Pholua PW5 and Sita Ram PW7 were recorded on 7.4.1984 and there was numberexplanation for the delay of three weeks in recording their statements Sita Ram PW7 categorically stated that he had lodged the report at police station, but the prosecution case was that Dehati Nalsi Ex.
After investigation police submitted a charge sheet against the respondent Kalyan Singh A1 for the offence under section 302 IPC for causing the death of Bhajju, for the offence under section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Jagdish and for offences under sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, for using the gun without a licence.
According to the prosecution witnesses Jagdish and his group , Balbir exhorted his son Kalyan Singh to kill him Jagdish and Kalyan Singh accordingly fired two shots one of which hit Jagdish on his hip and the second missed Jagdish but hit Bhajju and killed him.
The charge sheet was also filed against Accused Nos.2 to 6 for offences under section 201 IPC, alleging that they had filed a false report with the police with the purpose of companycealing the murder of Bhajju.
It sentenced the first respondent to undergo RI for life, three years, one year and three years respectively for the offences under sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
But Kalyan Singh is implicated for the murder of Bhajju by these alleged eye witnesses by belatedly companying forward and companyntering the defence version that Hari Gupta of Jagdishs group shot Bhajju.
In so far as Kalyan Singh A1 was companycerned, the Trial Court held that prosecution had proved the offences under sections 302 and 307 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
The Trial Court by its judgment dated 12.4.1988 acquitted Accused 2 to 6 as prosecution was number able to prove the offence under section 201 IPC against them.
Kalyan Singh fired at Jagdish causing injury on the hip of Jagdish.
According to the evidences of Dhani Ram PW3 and Michhua PW4 , Kalyan Singh fired from a distance but the Doctor found blackening on the body of the deceased Bhajju and that did number fit in with the case of the prosecution.
This is a State appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 20.3.2001 of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 1988 acquitting the respondent Kalyan Singh Accused No.1 by giving him the benefit of doubt.
One Hari Gupta belonging to the group of Jagdish shot him and Bhajju died.
Gajraj PW8 , who was standing nearby, also received pellet injuries.
Jagdish fired back with his pistol and Balbir companylapsed and died.
Jagdish objected to Balbir trying to play Dholak at Faag function organized by him and tried to pull the Dholak.
Therefore the delay in recording the statements of PWs.1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 had a material bearing on the case.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated 20.3.2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the companyviction and sentence against Kalyan Singh.
The shot hit Bhajju who fell down and died.
On 18.3.1984, a day after the Holi festival, Jagdish as Sarpanch, invited the villagers for playing Faag at Panchayat Bhawan.
The police however on investigation was of the view that Hari Gupta did number shoot Bhajju and they accepted the version of Jagdish and his party.
When Kalyan Singh again tried to shoot, Banmali PW1 snatched the gun and ran.
When Balbir came out, Jagdish PW12 shot him and Balbir died.
Jagdish PW12 , Gajraj PW8 and Banmali PW1 who sustained injuries in the incident were medically examined.
It is also the case of the prosecution that after Kalyan Singh shot Jagdish, Jagdish retaliated by firing at Balbir and companysequently Balbir Singh died.
Balbir exhorted him to kill Jagdish.
The defence was that Jagdish PW12 and his party came to the house of Balbir Singh and called him.
It is stated that DW4 was the father and DW3 was the brother of deceased Bhajju.
The prosecution case is virtually the version put forth by Jagdish and his party.
Thereafter, Kalyan Singh took another shot at Jagdish.
The prosecution case in brief is that there was enmity between Balbir Singh, father of respondent and Jagdish PW12 on account of Jagdish defeating Balbir Singh in the Sarpanch elections.
In the meanwhile, Kalyan Singh, son of Balbir came there armed with a gun.
The High Court accepted the companytention of the defence that the prosecution case was shrouded in mystery and full of inconsistencies and infirmities, creating a doubt about the prosecution case.
Banmali fell down.
On receipt of the information, police visited the place of incident and on the Dehati Nalshi of given by PW7 Sita Ram, Ex.
Feeling aggrieved, Kalyan Singh filed an appeal.
Gajraj took the gun from Banmali and kept it in the shop of Jagdish.
There was number compliance with the provision of section 157 Cr.
Similarly, the question whether Dehati Nalsi was recorded at site or number also assumes relevance.
Then, Bhajju nephew of Balbir Singh came running to the place of incident.
One Barar, a member of Jagdishs group, was playing Dholak.
Sovran A2 and Ghanshyam A4 beat Banmali.
The said acquittal is challenged by the State in this appeal by special leave.
The accused relied on the reports Ex.
P7 was recorded at the spot.
Balbir Singh came there and tried to snatch the Dholak from Barar.
P7 , FIR was registered.
PC as the report was number sent to the nearest Magistrate.
D4 and Ex.
D9 and the evidence of DW1 to DW4 who narrated the defence version.
