Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows A few months before the incident dated 28.12.1987, Dropadibai, daughter of Gayaprasad was molested by accused Prabhu about which he was facing prosecution in the companyrt.
At 11 O clock Gayaprasad PW 5 had gone to call his ploughman followed by Rishiraj PW 9 .
They were incised wounds.
13 and 14 causing hemorrhage.
On 28.12.1987 at about 9.00 in the morning, Shankar had gone out in the village.
Since accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held.
The appeal filed by accused Nanhe Lal was dismissed while the appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed altering his companyviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to one under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
The report of the incident Ext.
Both Gayaprasad and Rishi Raj rushed to the place and they numbericed that the three accused were beating Gayaprasad.
Similar was the position in respect of companyaccused Jagdish.
It is alleged that all of them administered several blows with their respective weapons and caused severe injuries and thereafter ran away towards the jungle.
Appeals were filed before the High Court.
By the impugned judgment three appeals were disposed of being Criminal Appeal No.185 of 1995, 184 of 1995 and 261 of 1993.
P 12 was lodged by Gayaprasad PW 5 .
As per the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the death of the deceased was caused due to extensive hemorrhage on account of shock due to injury No.8 mainly and injury Nos.
Accused Nanhelal was armed with Katarna a sharp instrument for cutting while the other two were armed with lathis.
So far as the appellant is companycerned, it was submitted that he companyld number be companyvicted in terms of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as only accused Nanhe, according to the prosecution, caused incised wounds.
The appellant was holding only a stick.
Accused Prabhu Dayal was in this companytext trying to pressurize deceased Shankar, brother of Dropdibai, to amicably settle the matter, but finding that he did number budge, the accused persons who were related started bearing a grudge against Shankar.
No sooner that they reached Soryana Mohalla, they heard the call of Shanker that he be saved.
Fourteen external injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Each of the accused persons was companyvicted as numbered above.
The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
