9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with Bhagirath (A-5) and Bali Ram (A-7) were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Peera Singh. Bhagirath (A-5) died during the pendency of trial and hence, trial abated against him. Bali Ram (a-7) was acquitted of all the charges by the High Court. Peera Singh (since deceased) was the resident of village Kalmer in district Indore (M.P.). Peera Singh suspected that his first wife was abducted by Bhagirath (A-5 since dead) which led to the incident of assault on Bhagirath by Peera Singh and his two associates, namely, Amba Ram and Hari Das. As a result of this assault, Bhagirath sustained serious injuries on his leg which was ultimately required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntervene and requested them to spare her husband but appellants did not pay any heed to her request but on the contrary they assaulted Ram Kanya (PW 1). While the assault was going on, a Matador was passing by the road. Ram Kanya (PW 1) gave a signal to the driver of the Matador to stop which in fact stopped. Goverdhan (PW 2), Rameshwar, Sunder (PW 8) and Hari Dass (PW 4) who were the occupants of the said Matador got down therefrom. The appellants finding that some persons had arrived at the scene of occurrence, fled away. Ram Kanya (P W 1) then requested the occupants of the Matador to help her in carrying the injured to the police station at Hatod. While carrying the injured Peera Singh to the police station at Hatod, he died on the way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... away of the accused from the place of incident. In addition to this evidence, prosecution examined panch witnesses to prove the spot panchanama as well as various recoveries of the incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Dr. N. Kochar (PW 5) was examined to prove the post mortem examination report (Ex. 6). 5. The trial court after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo various terms of sentences. The trial court however, acquitted A-1 to A-4 and A-6 of the charge under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to Ram ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n given by the investigating officer as to why it was sent to the concerned Magistrate after two days. Counsel, therefore, urged that the assault on Peera Singh must not have been witnessed by anybody and only after finding the dead body of Peera Singh on 8th August, 1984, a false FIR was registered against the appellants on suspicion and out of enmity. This contention was also raised before the courts below and the same was negatived by them. It is no doubt true that the copy of FIR was received by the concerned Magistrate on 10th August, 1984 but that by itself could not be a circumstance to hold that the FIR was ante dated and was in fact not lodged on 7th August, 1984. The evidence of Ram Kanya (PW 1) is very emphatic on this point and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that Ram Kanya (PW 1) was not present at the time when the assault took place on Peera Singh. Ram Kanya (PW 1) has given all necessary details as regards the assault, the weapons and the role played by each of the accused. It is in these circumstances, we do not see any error when the courts below have accepted the evidence of Ram Kanya (PW 1) as trustworthy. The presence of Ram Kanya (PW 1) at the time of incident also stands corroborated from the evidence of Goverdhan (PW 2) and Hari Dass (PW 4). They were the occupants of the Matador and it was stopped at the request of Ram Kanya (PW 1). When they got down, they saw the accused running away. They saw Ram Kanya (PW 1) was present at the sce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt confirmed the said finding after going through the evidence of Ram Kanya (PW 1), we see no reason to take a different view. 10. It was then urged by Mr. Singh that the evidence of Ram Kanya (PW 1), Goverdhan (PW 2) and Hari Dass (PW 4) should be discarded as they bore an enmity against the appellants. There is no corroboration to the evidence of these interested witnesses from any independent source and in the absence of such corroboration, it would not be safe to convict the appellants on their evidence. At any rate, appellants in the present circumstances be given benefit of doubt and be acquitted. This submission again does not appeal to us. Ram Kanya (PW 1) in her evidence had asserted that Bhagirath (A-5 since dead) was tel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
