As per the case of the prosecution, when the incident occurred, the complainant Jagannath (P.W.1) and his wife Kamlabai (P.W.8) along with their son deceased Laxminarayan as well as two daughters-in-law Suganbai (P.W.10) and Sharmilabai (P.W.11) were sleeping in the house situated near a tube-well in their field.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/selection-and-appointment-of-judicial-officers-in-himachal-pradesh/
The Trial Court held that accused no.1 – Ranglal and accused no.4 – Prem Singh were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC for assaulting P.W.1 Jagannath. The learned counsel for the appellants during the course of submissions stated that accused no.2 who is the appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010 has passed away.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though P.W.1 and P.W.8 had ascribed the same role to all the accused, the High Court has disbelieved their version only insofar as accused nos.1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are concerned.
As the High Court has disbelieved the testimony of P.W.10 and P.W.11 who were allegedly injured eye witnesses, their evidence will have to be kept out of consideration.
In the examination-in-chief, P.W.1 claimed that he was lying on a charpai when acquitted accused no.1 and accused no.4 came there and started giving blows by a lathi.
As noted earlier, P.W.1 never claimed that any one was holding weapons such as farsa and Ballam and that one of the accused attacked him with Ballam. Though P.W.1 did not make out a case that deceased Laxminarayan tried to run away, P.W.8 has come out with the said case that the deceased ran away and she could see from a distance that the accused were assaulting him.
In the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.8 though role assigned by them to all the accused was the same, the High Court acquitted accused no.1 Ranglal; accused no.5 Bhagwan Singh; accused no.6 Kamal Singh; accused no.7 Benu and accused no.8 Lakhan. As noted in order dated 22 January 2010 in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010, at the time of grant of bail, appellant no.1 (accused no.2) had undergone sentence for seven and half years and the appellant no.2 (accused 8 no.3) had undergone sentence of 10 years.
The impugned judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court to the extent which conviction of appellants (except appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2010) in these two appeals was confirmed, are set aside and the said appellants (accused no.3 Boro and accused no.9 Shyam) are acquitted of the offences alleged against them.
Case Title: BORO Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT (2022 INSC 1259)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000162-000162 / 2010
