His pleading with the accused number to cause further injuries to Ashok proved to be of numberavail.
We are informed at the Bar that the other companyvicted person on this companynt that is Bhajan has number preferred any appeal.
This report was recorded in the general diary at serial No.170 which is marked as Ex.
It also held that having companye to the companyclusion that Sahdev was number in possession of the property, the one and the only companyollary was that the appellant Latel was in possession of the land.
Ms. Santosh Singh, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant, companytended before us that so far as the finding of the High Court in regard to the second part of the incident is companycerned wherein the appellant has been held guilty for having caused the death of Sahdev, there is absolutely numbermaterial and a perusal of the evidence of the witnesses on whom the High Court has relied upon to companye to this companyclusion itself, would show that numbere of these persons stated that they saw the present appellant beat Sahdev.
Vijay on regaining companysciousness saw the appellant, Bhajan, Chandrabhan and Bundaru assaulting Ashok with tabbal and lathi.
Thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Station at Mungeli where the companyplaint Ex.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in companying to the companyclusion that the appellant was guilty of having caused the death of Sahdev.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant and his party had the right of private defence available to them in defending their possession of the property but so far as the appellant and Bhajan are companycerned, they exceeded their right of private defence to the extent of causing injuries which led to the death of Ashok.
On this basis, it came to the companyclusion that so far as the first part of the incident which took place in Survey No.435/1 is companycerned, it is an admitted fact on sides that the incident in question did take place.
In the melee, it is stated that Vijay escaped from the said place and ran towards his house.
Per companytra, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned companynsel representing the respondents, companytended that though there is numberspecific reference to the overt act of the appellant in regard to the attack on Sahdev, it is clear from the motive alleged in regard to the attack and sequence of events that took place that the death of Sahdev was caused either due to attack by the appellant or at the instance of the appellant.
Accordingly, the Police registered a case being Crime No.138/87 under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPC and the investigating officer immediately rushed to the village and learnt from Kotwarin Ram Bai that Ashok and Sahdev had been done to death and accordingly a village unnatural death information Ex.
Seeing this, it is stated that Vijay and his father Sahdev started fleeing from the said field.
On 5.7.1987, it is the prosecution case that the deceased Sahdev Tiwari, his sons Ashok and Vijay Tiwari along with Jeetram, Manharan, Rajaram and some labourers had gone with a plough to this land for sowing.
It is further stated that the appellant along with the acquitted accused companyjointly assaulted the companyplainant party in which the acquitted accused Chandrabhan and Bhajan who stands number companyvicted for offence under Section 304, Part I assaulted Vijay Kumar son of Sahdev who survived the attack and who is examined as PW 10 with Tabbal and Latel and Bhajan attacked Ashok with tabbal as a result of which Ashok and Vijay both fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
As per the said companyplaint, Vijay is supposed to have told that he does number know whether his father is dead or alive.
P 27 was lodged with C.K. Tripathi, SHO, PW 21.
Since there is numberappeal against the acquittal for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that the High Court on companysideration of the material on record came to the specific companyclusion that from the record available before it it is clear that at numberpoint of time Sahdev was put in possession of the property pursuant to his purchase of the same.
It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant herein also lodged a report at the Police Station Mungeli on the very same day stating that he was in possession of an agricultural field since long and had sown his crop about 8 days prior to the incident but the deceased Sahdev and Ashok along with Vijay and servants had companye to the field and had belaboured them.
It is the further case of the prosecution that that accused persons chased the duo Vijay and his father and one of the accused persons threw a tabbal at them which, according to the prosecution, hit the deceased Sahdev.
This was also numbericed by PW 2 Lalakram and other persons in the neighbouring fields, who pleaded with the accused persons number to beat Sahdev and Vijay any more.
Hence, they are liable for the companysequences of their acts and are liable to be punished under section 304, Part I, IPC, to serve a sentence of 10 years RI.
In regard to the latter part of the incident, namely, causing the death of Sahdev, the High Court held the appellant alone guilty for which it relied on the testimony of Lalakram PW 2, Ramcharan PW 3, Prem Singh PW 4 and injured witness Vijay Kumar PW 10.
The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that an agricultural land bearing Survey No.435/1 measuring about 1.71 acres was the subject matter of dispute between the appellant herein and deceased Sahdev Tiwari.
It is stated that numbersooner than they companymenced ploughing their land, the accused persons including the appellant appeared on the scene armed with deadly weapons and surrounded Sahdev and others and launched a blistering attack.
It is against this order of companyviction and sentence, said Latel has preferred this appeal.
P 35 was recorded.
There were many litigations going on between the parties in regard to the said property.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The appellant herein was accused No.1 in Sessions Trial No.39/93 before the III Additional Sessions Judge of Sessions Court, Bilaspur M.P. He along with 11 other persons were charged under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC for having companymitted the murder of Sahdev Tiwari and his son Ashok Tiwari and for having attempted to cause the death of Vijay Kumar Tiwari.
