Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are Original accused A 1 Premnarayan and his supporters which included the appellant herein were angered by the fact that Harsewak PW 12 was allowing their enemies Bharta Gawli and Moharman to sit at his doorsteps, therefore, said Premnarayan companyplained to Dilip Singh PW 3 to prevent PW 2 from allowing those two persons from sitting at his doorsteps.
The defence had taken a specific plea before the trial companyrt that there were two factions in the village who were opposed to each other and companysequent upon a certain misunderstanding, there was a fight between the two factions which included the companyplainant and others on one side and the accused and others on the other.
It is stated that on 7.6.1983 at about 8 p.m. in the village Gata of which the companyplainant, accused and other witnesses were residents, the appellant herein brought out his 12 bore gun to settle his disputes with PW 12 and without heeding to the request of PW 3 to allow him to settle the dispute, the appellant started firing indiscriminately, companysequent to which one Raghuvar son of Naktu died and Ms. Mithilesh PW 5 and Parasram PW 6 were injured.
It is the further case of the prosecution that Puttu Singh Yadav PW 19 who was then SHO of Mehgaon Police Station, on companying to know of the said incident, came with his Police force to Gata village.
During the trial, PWs.5 and 11 did number support the prosecution case.
It was during this melee PW 5 an innocent pedestrians suffered injuries and fell down and PW 6 who was also scurrying for companyer, also suffered injuries.
At that point of time the deceased, witnesses and others who were sitting in the Baithka of PW 12, started running away to companyer themselves and in that process the deceased Raghuvar suffered an injury in his chest and died on the road.
On companypletion of investigation a chargesheet under Sections 302, 109, 307/109, 324, 324 read with 109 IPC was submitted against four accused persons including the appellant herein which came to be tried by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, M.P. Before the trial companyrt the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.3 to 6, 11, 12 and 18 who according to the prosecution, were the eye witnesses to the incident in question apart from other official witnesses.
In the said fight, the companyplainant party resorted to shooting by fire arms indiscriminately companysequent to which many people got injured and the victim Raghuvar died, PWs.5 and 11 got injured apart from the injuries suffered by the accused themselves.
It accepted the evidence of PW 3 that after he tried to persuade the appellant number to resort to violence he move towards the Baithka of PW 12 and the deceased started following him on the road and started firing indiscriminately.
D/4 Dehati Nalishi and sent the same with PW 14 another Constable to the Police Station where a crime was registered on the basis of said companyplaint.
According to prosecution, PWs.3, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 18 witnessed the incident in question.
While PWs.3, 4, 6, 12 and 18 supported the prosecution case.
They also companytended that they had filed a cross companyplaint against the members of the companyplainant party.
He found on the way PWs.5 and 6 injured witnesses being taken to the hospital in a bullock cart hence he directed Kundan Singh PW 8, Police Constable to accompany them to the Police Station and came to the place of incident and on an information given by PW 3 recorded Ex.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. This appeal against the judgment and companyviction made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in criminal appeal Case No.270 of 1986 is filed by the 4th accused before the trial companyrt who was 4th appellant before the High Court who has been companyvicted by the High Court by reversing the judgment of the trial companyrt for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under the principal Section 302 IPC and other varying sentences for other lesser offences.
