He had given the graphic description of the entire incident and specifically mentioned that Kamlesh and Virendra Singh had abused him and then Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh had beaten him with lathis.
Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh also assaulted Lakhan with lathis on the head, shoulder and back.
The accused persons also caused injuries to Ramshri and Satyanarain.
The pallets of the bullet also injured Satyanarain and his sister Rajkumari.
The version of prosecution witnesses is companysistent and, despite gruelling and long cross examination, numberdent companyld be made by the defence on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
On Hakim Singhs exhortation, Kamlesh fired at the deceased Bhagirath causing his death.
The trial companyrt companyvicted all the three accused under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
When Baburam shouted on getting lathi blows, then his mother Ramshri, Satyanarain and Lakhan rushed to save him.
Admittedly, all the three accused in companysonance with the prearranged plan had gone to the house of the deceased to teach him a lesson for disobeying their orders.
Hakim Singh died during the pendency of the appeal.
In spite of his clear explanation for number being able to reap the crop of the accused persons, they pressurized the deceased Bhagirath to reap the crop standing on their field.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be companycluded that death was caused on account of grave or sudden provocation.
The deceased Bhagirath intervened.
Immediately on reaching the spot Virendra Singh and Hakim Singh started beating Baburam with lathis and when deceased Bhagirath intervened, he was shot at by Kamlesh in furtherance of the companymission of offence.
Virendra Singh and Hakim Singh were armed with lathis and Kamlesh was armed with a rifle.
It was further deposed by Baburam P.W. 6 that Hakim Singh then asked Kamlesh to shoot Bhagirath and Kamlesh shot at Bhagirath.
Satyanarain P.W.7 had also given the detailed description of the entire incident and specifically stated about the role of the appellant Virendra Singh in the entire incident.
Kamlesh also fired at Baburam but the bullets missed him.
262 of 1986.
Baburam P.W. 6 is an injured eye witness.
After companymission of the offence the accused persons ran away towards the canal.
The accused persons got annoyed on deceaseds refusal to reap their crop.
Both Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh also assaulted Ramshri, the mother of Baburam on her hand and head, which resulted into a fracture of her hand.
At that point of time Hakim Singh exhorted Kamlesh to shoot Bhagirath.
The accused also assaulted Lakhan on the head by lathi.
The incident was witnessed by Ramsahay P.W.11 and Bhoorelal.
Accused Hakim Singh, Kamlesh and Virendra Singh armed with weapons went to the house of Bhagirath the next day at 7.00 a.m. to take revenge for declining to carry out the order of the accused persons.
Bhagirath informed that he would number be able to reap their crop as he had to reap the crop grown in his own field.
The deceased replied that he had already informed them that he would number be in a position to reap their crop for the aforementioned reasons.
The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court preferred this appeal.
On the companytrary, it is fully established that all the accused had gone to the house of Bhagirath to teach him a lesson armed with lathis and a rifle, because the previous day the deceased declined to follow their orders of reaping their crops because of his reasons.
Lakhan was also assaulted.
The trial companyrt, after scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, companyvicted Hakim Singh, Kamlesh and Virendra Singh under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short, IPC .
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are as under Hakim Singh and his two sons Virendra Singh and Kamlesh Singh went to the house of the deceased Bhagirath and asked him to reap their crop the next day.
He also informed the accused persons that apart from reaping his crop he would also be busy in lagan ceremony of his son Satyanarain and Tilak ceremony of his grandson, Lakhan which was going to be performed after two days.
Kamlesh shot at Bhagirath in the stomach, which resulted in his death.
When Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh were assaulting Baburam with lathis, then Lakhan, Rakesh, Satyanarain, son of the deceased, Ramshri, mother of Baburam and Rajkumari, sister of Baburam rushed to save Baburam.
On getting this response, accused persons, namely, Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh got infuriated and started hurling filthy abuses and beating Baburam, son of the deceased.
It was canvassed before the trial companyrt that the deceased had died because of the fire arm injury caused by Kamlesh, therefore, Virendra Singh and Hakim Singh cannot be companyvicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
They asked Bhagirath why he had number gone to reap their crop.
In appeal by the remaining two accused Kamlesh and Virendra Singh, the High Court again carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and came to a clear companyclusion that the appellant Virendra Singh is also guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Rajkumari P.W.10 has categorically stated that Hakim Singh along with Virendra Singh armed with lathis and Kamlesh armed with a firearm came to the house of Bhagirath and started abusing him and thereafter Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh assaulted Baburam with lathis.
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Virendra Singh against the judgment dated 17.5.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.
He further deposed that when his mother came to save him, then accused Hakim Singh and Virendra Singh had assaulted his mother also on her hand and head by lathis, which resulted in the fracture of her hand.
