Bucha fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
The appellant snatched the Khutai from the hand of Bucha and gave two or three blows on his head.
The work came to a stop at about 9 a.m. and the labourers left the place.
Thereafter Damrulal left the place angrily after giving a warning to Bucha that he would soon settle the score.
The aforesaid three persons were tried for the murder of one Bucha by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh.
Thereafter the appellant and his remaining two brothers, Ganesh and Damrulal, caught hold of Bucha.
The appellant, Ganesh and Damrulal carried away Har Charan in a cart and lodged a report with the police.
Ganesh exhorted his brother Har Charan to catch hold of Bucha and kill him.
Bucha was dragged out of his house upto a nearly neem tree There he was given a beating by fists and kicks by the appellant and his three brothers Bucha companytrived to extricate himself from their grip and picked up a Khutai lying nearby He gave three blows on the head of Har Charan with the Khutai.
Then there was an exchange of hot words between them.
The prosecution examined four eye witnesses of the occurrence.
Bucha died soon afterwards.
The High Court did number rely on the evidence of Kanhaiyalal.
Kanhaiyalal P.W. 6.
In the result, the High Court has companyvicted the appellant of the offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. Counsel for the appellant has addressed us on two points.
Dr. S. N. Banerji, who did the autopsy on the dead body of Bucha has deposed With these injuries death was inevitable.
The State appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge to the High Court.
While the deceased was taking his meal in the verandah of his house, Damrulal, Ganesh and the appellant along with their brother Har Charan arrived there.
50/ each.
lodged the F.I.R. about the incident in the Police Station Prithvipur.
Khumania,Fijia and Bhagola.
The High Court said The respondents had companye prepared to beat the deceased and, as stated above, were the aggressOrs.
Kanhaiyalal, P.W. 6, Mst.
The prosecution case was this On May 4, 1968, Damrulal Went to the house of Bucha while he was supervising foundation digging near his house.
The High Court, however, relied on the evidence of Mst.
Agreeing with the Sessions Judge, the High Court has held that the appellant had inflicted blows on the head of the deceased Bucha by the khutai The High Court has further agreed with the Sessions Judge that Ganesh did number instigate the appellant to kill Bucha, But there the area of agreement between them ends.
Tijia, P.W. 2 and, Bhagola, P W. 3.
Khumania, P.W. 1, Mst.
The respondents, therefore, companyld number claim protection under a right to defend against Bucha who, in exercise of a right of private defence, wielded the khutai causing serious injuries and even death of one of the attackers.
Har Charan fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
Damrulal warned the deceased to abstain from using bricks belonging to him Bucha replied that he was using his own bricks.
Kanhaiyalal was declared hostile by the prosecution.
They have number appealed.
N. Dwivedi J. It is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh companyvicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
One of the skull fractures extended from the right temporal region to the left temporal region and proceeded internally to the base of the skull.
By the same judgment the High Court companyvicted Ganesh and Damrulal under Section 323 I.P.C and imposed a sentence of Rs.
