Both the accused persons had preferred appeals before the High Court questioning companyrectness of the judgment recorded by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.19 of 1997.
Thereafter, this person came to the house of the deceased and asked Shakunbai, who is wife of the deceased, that how the incident had occurred, on which she replied that Sukku caught hold of the hands of the deceased and thereafter appellant Ramsingh dealt several blows of knife on the person of the deceased as a result of which he died.
Nine witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.
The Trial Court found the evidence of the eye witnesses credible and companyent and, therefore, held both the accused persons guilty.
After the investigation was over, a charge sheet was submitted which, on its turn, companymitted the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the trial companyrt for its trial.
The stand of innocence and the plea to discard the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 on the ground that they are related to the deceased were reiterated before the High Court.
Behind him companyaccused Sukku was also running away.
In brief the prosecution is that Ganesh Prasad, who is the author of the FIR heard hue and cry of Shakunbai at about 8 9 PM as a result of which he came out from his house and saw appellant Ram Singh carrying knife in his hand was companying out from the house of Laddu alias Baisakhu hereinafter referred to as the deceased and was running away.
Since the accused persons abjured their guilt, trial was held.
By the impugned judgment, the appeals were dismissed.
Of them, Shakunbai PW 2 was the widow of the deceased and Dhani Ram PW 3 is his son, who claimed to be eye witnesses.
It did number find any substance in the plea of the accused persons that the evidence of eye witnesses should be discarded as they are related to the deceased.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the presence of PWs 2 and 3 on the spot of occurrence is highly suspicious and they being relatives of the deceased, have falsely implicated the accused persons for reasons best known to them.
Thereafter, Ganesh Parsad went to lodge the First Information Report and on lodging the FIR, law was set in motion.
Two witnesses were examined by the accused persons in support of their plea of innocence.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and upholding his companyviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for three years and one year respectively with fine and default stipulations.
Appellant faced trial along with one Sukku alias Sikku, who was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other offences, as in the case of present appellant.
