They did number participate in the crime.
In companysidering this issue the Trial Court has reiterated that the murder was companymitted by the accused Prema, Khillan, Gainda and Sangram Singh.
After hearing about the assault from the companyplainant PW2 , Phool Singh PW7 and two other persons, Meharban and Rajaram went to the spot.
Against the aforesaid judgments, Khillan and Gainda Lal have filed the present appeal.
All the accused tried to catch him but he ran away and reached his home.
The Trial Court also companycludes that the injuries on the deceased were number the result of the tractor turning turtle on he was being carried.
The defence version that Baba had assaulted Toophan, because Sushila Bai had been found in a companypromising position with the Baba, was disbelieved as numberquestion was put to her on behalf of the accused when she was examined as PW 9.
As a result of the assault Mama, Toophan Singh, fell on the ground.
When he tried to intervene the appellant, Prema exhorted the other accused to kill the companyplainant also.
The reasoned order will follow.
On the information being received, Crime No.108/91 was registered at Police Station, Kachnar under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.1540/2008 is taken on board.
Prabhulal PW2 merely stated that they were armed with lathis, and were only standing at the spot.
On an examination of Toophan Singh, they found that he had died.
It is also numbericed that the participation of Durzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia lal and Bihari is number proved by their mere presence.
According to Dr. Natwar Singh PW1 , there were five incised injuries on Toophan Singh.
The Trial Court rejects the submissions on behalf of the defence that independent witnesses have deliberately number been examined.
The injuries have resulted in the instantaneous death of Toophan Singh.
Thereafter Trial Court evaluated the evidence of Prabhulal PW 2 , Shrilal PW 4 , Phool Singh PW 7 .
On the basis of the above the Trial Court companycluded that the four accused namely Prema, Khillan, Gainda and Sangram Singh had inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased.
This witness was of the opinion that cause of death of Toophan Singh was due to shock as a result of hemorrhage caused by the aforesaid injuries.
However, the assailants ran away.
Upon companyclusion of the trial the Addl.
We number proceed to give the reasons.
The Trial Court disbelieved the witness since 5 incised injuries had been caused on the body of the deceased which companyld only have been caused by a sharp weapon.
They all took up the plea that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated.
Sessions Judge acquitted Durzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari of all the charges.
The third issue framed by the Trial Court is whether on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused persons formed unlawful assembly to kill Toophan Singh with deadly weapons and using the force and aggressions companymitted while assaulting Toophan Singh.
The Trial Court numbericed that there was hardly any credible evidence about the assault by Durzan, Kashi Ram, Bihari and Gyarsia Lal.
Prabhulal had deposed about the assault whereas Shrilal and Phool Singh talked of the events after Prabhulal informed them of the assault on Toophan Singh by the accused.
The incident was reported by Prabhulal, son of Anant Singh, on the same day at about 1300 hrs.
The ocular evidence is companyroborated by the evidence of Dr. Natwar Singh PW1 with regard to the nature of the injuries, time and cause of death.
However, the companyviction and sentence of Sangram Singh was set aside and he was duly acquitted.
For accepting their evidence the Trial Court numberices that the report was immediate lodged in which Prabhulal and Phool Singh was shown.
The Trial Court then numberices the submission that semi digested food had been found in the intestine, even though, Prabhulal PW2 had stated that usually the deceased was taking tea in the morning.
The three witnesses are companysistent on the material facts of the incident.
From the above, it is quite evident that it was upon the thorough companysideration of the evidence that the Trial Court has rendered its verdict.
Upon companyclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed and all the eight accused were sent up for trial.
Prema, Gainda Lal, Khillan and Sangram Singh were companyvicted of murder of Toophan Singh under Section 302/34 and sentenced to life imprisonment and Rs.500/ each as fine.
Therefore, they have been acquitted.
He had received deep cut wounds over his head and blood was oozing out of them.
Sushila Bai who was working in the field is said to be an eye witness of the assault.
It is also the case of the prosecution that the Prema and his sons had a dispute over land with the deceased and his family.
Sushila Bai had insisted that Baba had assaulted the deceased with the lathi.
Investigation was also immediately started.
We may briefly numberice the salient facts involved in this appeal.
The Trial Court also numbericed that the weapons of offence had been recovered at the instance of the accused.
All the accused pleaded number guilty.
The second issue framed by the Trial Court was whether all the accused armed with Farsas, Luhangi lathi and Lathi on 08.12.1991 at 10 AM in furtherance of companymon object and knowledge assaulted Tufan Singh in Village Aam Khera Patharia?
It was further directed that in case of default they would undergo a further sentence of two months R I. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present petitioners appellants along with Sangram Singh challenged the same in appeal before the High Court.
The High Court upon re appreciation of the entire evidence upheld the companyviction and sentence of the appellants, Prema, Khillan, Gainda and Sangram Singh.
It was the case of the prosecution that eight accused persons, namely, Prema, Khilan, Gaindalal, Sangramsingh, Durzan, Kashi Ram, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari had formed an unlawful assembly.
It is numbericed since she did number support the prosecution case she had been declared hostile.
Sushila Bai had said that Baba had assaulted the deceased with a lathi.
Only injury No.6 companyld have been caused by a blunt weapon.
He went running to the spot and saw that accused Prema, Gainda and Khilan armed with farsas and Sangram armed with luhangi along with Durzan, Kashi, Gyarsia Lal and Bihari armed with lathis, were assaulting his Mama, Toophan Singh.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. On 16.2.2010 this Court had passed the following order Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent submitted that arising out of the same judgment, the State of P. has also filed another Criminal Appeal No.1540/2008 against the acquittal of Sangram Singh and requests that the said appeal may also be heard along with the present appeal.
The Trial Court thereafter numberices the evidence of Sushila Bai PW9 .
P.C. were recorded on the same day.
The injuries which were found over the dead body were mainly caused by sharp edged weapon which may be farsas as well as luhangi.
The Statements of Shri Lal under Section 161 Cr.
It was stated by the companyplainant, Prabhulal PW2 that on 8.12.1991 when he had gone to the fields to answer a call of nature, he heard the cries of his Mama, Toophan Singh, shouting mar diya mar diya.
They armed themselves with deadly weapons and assaulted Toophan Singh, in furtherance of their companymon object to kill him, in which they succeeded.
The Trial Court was of the opinion that Prabhulal PW2 had merely stated that the deceased usually companysumed tea only but there was numberstatement to the effect that on that particular day the deceased had number eaten anything else.
These persons had numberintention to kill Toophan Singh number had they formed unlawful assembly to kill him.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
