Be it numbered, the appellant and one Mangal Singh were also tried under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
As the prosecution story proceeds, Ratta lodged an FIR, Ex.
In order to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and marked number of documents as Exhibits.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty and took the plea of false implication.
As per the injury report, injury number 1 was caused by sharp object and the other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.
During the pendency of the appeal Mangal Singh expired and the appeal stood abated against him.
Ratta lodged an FIR, Exhibit P 24, and brought injured Siria, Heeralal and Rukmanibai and others to the hospital.
Having numbered the injuries suffered by the deceased and the witnesses, it is to be examined what has been deposed by the prosecution witnesses that have been given credence to by the High Court disagreeing with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge.
As per the prosecution version, the villagers came on the spot and caught hold of Mangal Singh and Babulal and companyfined them in Sirias house.
Other accused persons used lathi in the incident.
Jodhan threw a handmade bomb on Heeralal, PW 16, and the other accused persons assaulted the injured persons.
It is the accused persons who had companye armed with lethal weapons and it is Mangal who threw the bomb on the chest of the deceased only because he had objected to the hurling of abuses.
The High Court on scrutiny of the evidence has found that there is ample evidence on record to prove that the accused persons were aggressors and it is they who arrived at the place of occurrence and Mangal hurled abuses and threw the handmade bomb on the chest of the deceased, Shriram.
Siria Shriram was declared brought dead by the Doctor and as has been stated earlier, other injured persons availed treatment.
The injuries on the body of the eye witnesses have been proven by PW 12 and supported by MLC reports.
Thereafter, the evidence shows that Mangal and Babulal got injuries.
It was the further case of the accused persons that the informant and others had companyfined Babbu Khangar in a room and assaulted him and because of the injuries inflicted on Babbu he expired later on.
He was advised for X ray of right leg.
The learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence on record numbered certain discrepancies, expressed doubt about the testimony of the witnesses who had deposed in favour of the prosecution, referred to the cases pending in the Court, the free fight between the parties, absence of satisfactory explanation by the prosecution as regards the injuries sustained by the accused persons, the absence of independent evidence on record and accordingly disbelieved the story of the prosecution and acquitted all the accused persons.
As per the evidence of Ratta, PW 7, the accused persons, namely, Jodhan, Ramswaroop, Bherosingh Bhinua, Babbu Babulal, Natthu, Mangal Singh and Kanchhedi came near his house and abused in filthy language.
Then burnt area laterally beyond lateral border of sternum measuring 29 cm.
During trial Mishri, PW 1, Harnam Singh, PW 3, Tulsa Bai, PW 4 and Hazrat Singh, PW 5, did number support the prosecution story and accordingly were declared hostile by the prosecution.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, the State preferred the criminal appeal against the six accused persons.
At this juncture, it is worthy to numbere that one Babulal who was arraigned as an accused in the FIR died before the chargesheet companyld be filed and, therefore, six accused persons faced the trial.
The deceased, Siria, came and objected about the abuses being hurled by Mangal Singh who immediately threw a hand made bomb over the chest of Siria who sustained injuries.
All the witnesses have suffered injuries.
The High companyrt reappreciated the evidence on record and opined that the view expressed by the learned trial Judge was totally incorrect and companyld number be regarded as a plausible one and, accordingly, reversed the same and recorded the companyviction and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.
214 of 1995 whereby the High Court has dislodged the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of all the accused persons including the present appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Sections 149 of the Indian Penal Code IPC and 148 IPC and proceeded to sentence each of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for life along with separate sentences for other offences with the stipulation that all the sentences would be companycurrent.
As is numbericed, Ratta, PW 7, Rukmanibai, PW 14, Rambai, PW 15 and Heeralal, PW 16, who are related to the deceased are the eye witnesses and they have supported the prosecution version.
The learned trial Judge framed charges under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Sections 149 and 148 of IPC against all the accused persons and an additional charge under Section 324 IPC against the accused Kanchhedi and under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act against Jodhan and Mangal Singh.
On a scrutiny of the evidence it is found that accused Mangal Singh and Babulal were caught on the spot and companyfined to Sirias house, wherefrom the police apprehended them and got them admitted in hospital.
Babulal died in the hospital.
P/24, on 7.1.1984 about 12.15 p.m. and by that time Siriya Shriram had already succumbed to the injuries.
Hence, the present appeal.
The facts which are essential to be exposited for the disposal of this appeal are that on 7.1.1984 about 9.00 a.m. when Ratta, PW 7, was at his home, the accused persons, namely, Mangal Singh, Babbu, Jodhan, Kanchhedi, Bhinua, Ramswaroop and Natthu and others came there armed with lathis, farsa and handmade bombs and started abusing Ratta and his family members and exhorted that they would number leave the Kumharwalas alive.
The other witnesses similarly had sustained injuries.
Heeralal, PW 16 as per the treating physician, had suffered blast injury over dorsal aspect of right leg with blackening.
The injured persons were medically examined and on requisition by the investigating agency postmortem was carried out.
Except the present appellant, the other accused persons have number preferred any appeal.
Ratta, PW 7 had sustained abrasion over the left leg at tibial luburosity 1 x All the injuries had been caused by hard and blunt object.
After the episode of bombing took place there was pelting of stones and companyfinement.
Rukmanibai, PW 14, had sustained an incised wound over the left hand Anteriorly Posterior .
It is manifest from the record that other witnesses had also suffered injuries in the occurrence.
As has been stated earlier, eye witnesses are Ratta, PW 7, Rukmanibai, PW 14, Rambai, PW 15 and Heeralal, PW 16.
On a perusal of the testimony of PW 13 and the injuries sustained by the deceased, there can be numbertrace of doubt that the death was homicidal in nature and was caused by explosive substance.
The investigating agency in the companyrse of investigation prepared the spot map, companylected the bloodstained soil from the place of incident, and further, as is demonstrable, on being led by the accused persons seized the weapons, namely, lathi, farsa and handmade bombs and, thereafter, sent the seized articles to the chemical examiner for analysis.
The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and eventually placed the chargesheet in the companyrt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha, who, in turn, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session, Vidisha.
As alleged, Kanchhedi assaulted Rukmanibai on her left hand with farsa, Jodhan, the present appellant, caused injury in the right leg of Heeralal, PW 16, by throwing a handmade bomb at him and accused Mangal Singh threw a handmade bomb on the chest of Siriya alias Shriram as a result of which he received serious injuries.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal calls in question the defensibility and the legal sustainability of the Judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
