Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaushal Prasad & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 449 of 2006
Parties Name 1. Kaushal Prasad, S/o Jethu
Kumhar, aged about 45 years.
2. Brijbhan, S/o Kinku
Kumhar, aged about 20 years.
3. Ram Lal, S/o Chakodi
Kumhar, aged about 28 years.
4. Triveni, S/o Lalmani
Kumhar, aged about 27 years.
5. Panna Lal alias Raj
Kumar, S/o Rajmani aged about
20 years.
6. Shyam Lal, S/o Sudarshan
Saket, aged about 20 years.
All R/o Village Chandramahuli,
Police Station Mauganj, District
Rewa (M.P)
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh,
through Police Station Mauganj,
District Rewa (M.P.)
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K.
Gangele.
&
Hon'ble Shri Justice Anurag
Shrivastava.
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Anurag
Shrivastava
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
-2-
Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and
Others Vs. State of
M.P.
Name of counsels for For appellants:
parties Smt. Durgesh Gupta,
Advocate.
For respondent/State:
Shri A.N. Gupta, Government
Advocate.
Law laid down
Significant paragraph
numbers
JUDGMENT
(18.01. 2018) This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants/accused against the judgment and conviction dated 28 th February, 2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Mauganj, District Rewa, (M.P.) in S.T. No.262/2002, whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, Sections 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each and Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulations.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the land Khasra No.412 area 28 decimal situated near Pagal Chouraha at village Chandramahuli belongs to complainant Jhingai Kumhar and appellant Ram Lal who were having ½ - ½ share in the land. There was a hut constructed by Jhingai on the land and he had also kept bricks near the hut. Appellant Kaushal had sold 5 decimal -3- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. of aforesaid land to Kaushal about 20 days prior to incident. On 06.11.2002 at around 01:00 pm in the afternoon Jhingai lodged a report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Mauganj, stating that on 06.11.2002 at about 11:00 O' clock in the afternoon, appellant Kaushal came on the spot and started throwing away the bricks kept by Jhingai near his hut. When Jhingai raised objection, Kaushal abuses him and inflicted blow of lathi on his left shoulder. Thereafter appellant Triveni and Panna Lal came on the spot and assaulted Jhingai by lathi. Jhingai raised the alarm and cried for help hearing this his son Ram Lal and daughter-in-law Laxmi Bai came there and tried to intervene than appellant Ram Lal and Brij Bhan arrived on the spot. Kaushal abused Jhingai and Ram Lal and by shouting that he would not leave them alive inflicted a blow of axe on head of Ram Lal. Panna Lal and Triveni also beaten Ram Lal by lathi. Appellant Brij Bhan and Triveni assaulted Laxmi Bai by lathi and caused injuries. Ram Sajeevan Patel, Ram Gopal, Shiv Balak and Laxman arrived on the spot and witnessed the incident.
3. As per prosecution, on the basis of FIR lodged by Jhingai the police registered offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. K.B. Upadhyaya, SHO, Police Station Mauganj (PW-17) initiated the investigation, prepared spot map (Ex.P/2) and sent Jhingai, Ram Lal, Laxmi Bai for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Mauganj. Dr. V.N. Satnami (PW-11) examined Ram Lal and finding his condition serious referred him to Medical College, Rewa, but Ram Lal expired after sometime in the hospital. Dr. Satnami intimated the police about the -4- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. death of Ram Lal. The police registered Marg intimation (Ex.P/25) and prepared panchanama of dead body (Ex.P/27) and sent the body for postmortem. During investigation an axe was seized at the instance of appellant Kaushal Prasad and the lathi were seized at the instance of other appellants. The statement of witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the Court.
4. The appellants have been charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 145, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC. They abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. The prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses, whereas appellants have adduced one witness in their defence.
5. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence arrived at the conclusion that the appellants have formed an unlawful assembly and being member of the assembly in furtherance of common object, committed murder of Ram Lal and caused simple injuries to Jhingai and Laxmi Bai. At the time of incident they were armed with deadly weapon, therefore, the trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the dispute is essentially arising out of a land dispute of Khasra No.412/3 area 0.60 acres. Out of this total area, an area of 5 decimal was purchased by -5- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. one Genda Lal who happens to be the brother of appellant No.1 Kaushal, from the wife of Ram Lal appellant No.3, namely Raju. At the time of incident complainant Jhingai was trying to encroach upon the land of Raju by constructing a hut on it. When appellant Kaushal objected to it the incident took place. Kaushal has right of defense of his property. There is no unlawful assembly. There was sudden fight on question of throwing bricks and constructing the hut. Appellant Ram Lal had given an application before the SDO for restraining Jhingai from constructing the hut on the disputed land. On direction of SDO Patwari had demarcated the land and prevented Jhingai from making an encroachment on the disputed land. The appellants have been falsely implicated in this offence due to enmity. The trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant in aforesaid offence.
7. Heard arguments and perused the record.
8. It is not disputed that at the time of incident deceased Ram Lal, his father Jhingai and Laxmi Bai sustained injuries and Ram Lal succumbed to his injuries. The report of incident (Ex.P/1) has been lodged by Jhingai at Police Station Mauganj on 06.11.2002. The police registered the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and sent Jhingai, Ram Lal and Laxmi Bai for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Mauganj. The doctor examined Ram Lal and giving primary treatment referred him to Medical College Hospital, Rewa but, before shifting him to Rewa, Ram Lal succumbed to his -6- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. injuries in the hospital at Mauganj. Dr. Satnami (PW-11) intimated the police about the death of Ram Lal, than ASI, R.S. Parihar (PW-15) recorded Marg intimation (Ex.P/25), conducted inquest, prepared panchanama of dead body (Ex.P/27) and sent the body for postmortem. These facts are duly verified by the statement of Jhingai, Laxmi Bai, R.S. Parihar (PW-15), Investigating Officer, K.B. Upadhayay (PW-17) and Dr. V.N. Satnami (PW-11).
9. Dr. V.N. Satnami (PW-11) deposed that on 06.11.2002 at Community Health Centre Mauganj, he has performed the postmortem of deceased Ram Lal and found following injuries:-
i. Incised wound 5 X 2 cm bone deep with depressed fracture of under lying bone with reddish blood clotts over forehead.
ii. Incised wound 4 X 2 cm X bone deep over forehead.
iii. Reddish contusion over right upper arm 10 X 7 cm with fracture right humerus bone.
iv. Contusion 7 X 4 cm reddish in colour over right leg.
v. Contusion 4 X 2 cm over right of chest. vi. Contusion 6 X 2 cm over right anterior of chest.
vii. Contusion 5 X 3 cm over right side of chest. viii. Contusion 7 X 4 cm over right scapular region.
ix. Contusion 8 X 3 cm over left sub scapular region.
-7-Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. x. Contusion 5 X 3 cm over left sub scapular region.
xi. Contusion 10 X 4 cm on right thigh.
There was intra cranial hemorrhage present. It is opined by the doctor the injuries are ante-mortem injuries No.i and ii are caused by hard and sharp object. Cause of death is coma due to head injuries. The statement of doctor is duly corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P/12) given by him. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the postmortem report and held that the death of Ram Lal is homicidal.
10. Dr. V.N. Satnami (PW-11) further deposed that on 06.11.2002 he has examined Laxmi Bai and Kanhai also. On examination of Laxmi Bai he found:-
i. Incised wound 7 X 1 X skin deep over right side of head.
ii. Contusion 6 X 5 cm over right forearm.
It is opined by the doctor that injury No.i was caused by hard and sharp object and injury No.ii is caused by hard and blunt object. The statement of doctor is corroborated by MLC report (Ex.P/8). Similarly on examination of Jhingai the doctor found i. Contusion 8 X 6 cm over left head ii. contusion 6 X 5 cm over left forearm. Both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The statement of doctor is corroborated by MLC report (Ex.P/9). Thus, from the statement of Dr. V.N. Satnami it is proved that at the time of incident complainant Jhingai and his daughter-in-law Laxmi Bai had also sustained injuries.-8-
Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P.
11. Now the question arises whether the appellants formed unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object of unlawful assembly, they committed murder of Ramlal and caused injuries to witness Jhingai and his daughter-in-law Laxmi Bai?
12. Complainant Jhingai (PW-1) deposed that the land initially bearing Khasra No. 412 belongs to Jhingai and appellant Ramlal, both were having ½ - 1/2 of shares in this land. In cross-examination Para 6, he has admitted that the land bearing Khasra No.412/1 belongs to him and land Khasra No.412/3 belongs to Smt. Raju w/o Ramlal. Raju had sold this land Khasra No.412/3 to appellant Kaushal before incident. He has further deposed that he had constructed a hut on his land Khasra No.412/1 and kept some bricks near the hut. This is suggested by the defence that Jhingai has constructed the hut and kept the bricks on the land Khasra No.412/3 which belongs to appellant Kaushal. Jhingai has not accepted this suggestion. He has admitted in cross-
examination Para 11 that prior to incident on 24.10.2002, Raju W/o of Ramlal had preferred an application before S.D.O. Mauganj for restraining Jhingai to construct a hut on Khara No. 412/3. On this application, the Patwari went on the spot and after making demarcation of the land, removed the hut and demarcated the boundaries of Khasra No.412/1 and 412/3. This shows that there was a dispute between the complainant Jhingai and appellant Kaushal regarding possession of land Khasra No.412/3. It appears that appellant Kaushal was claiming that Jhingai -9- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. had constructed the hut on his land bearing Khasra No.412/3 and kept the bricks.
13. Complainant Jhingai (PW-1) deposed that at the time of incident, the wife and grand-daughter-in-law of Kaushal were throwing the bricks kept by Jhingai on his land. Seeing this, Jhingai told them not to throw the bricks, hearing this, Kaushal came there abused him and assaulted him by a lathi on his back. Appellant Brijbhan, Triveni, Shayam Lal and Panna Lal were also present there. Triveni and Panna Lal inflicted blows of lathies on his left hand and back. Jhingai raised the alarm, hearing this his son Ramlal and daughter-in-law Laxmi Bai came on the spot and tried to intervene and save Jhingai, then appellant Kaushal inflicted the blows of axe on the head of Ramlal. Receiving the injuries, Ramlal fell down on the ground, then appellant Shyam Lal, Panna Lal, Triveni and Brijbhan had beaten him by lathi. Appellant Triveni, Brijbhan and Shyam Lal had also assaulted Laxmi Bai by lathies and caused injuries on her head and hands. Seeing the incident, the witness Ram Sajivan, Ram Gopal, Laxman and Balak Kachhi arrived on the spot and intervene. Thereafter, appellant flew away from the spot.The injured Ramlal, Jhingai and Laxmibai were taken to Police Station Mauganj where Jhingai lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 and they were sent to hospital.
14. In cross-examination, we find material discrepancies in the statement of Jhingai. In first information report Ex-P-1 he had not mentioned that appellant Shayam Lal was also present on the spot and -10- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. he had assaulted the deceased and Laxmi Bai. This omission creates doubt on the presence of appellant Shyam Lal. In FIR Ex.P-1 and Police statement Ex.D-1, it is not mentioned by Jhingai that all the appellants came together on the spot armed with lathi and axe.
15. Laxmi Bai (PW-2) deposed that at the time of incident, the wife and grand-daughter-in-law of Kaushal were throwing away the bricks kept by Jhingai on his land. Seeing this, Laxmi Bai and her sister Rajkali tried to stop them and they were putting back the bricks thrown by them. Thereafter, the appellants came there armed with axe and lathi. Seeing them, Laxmi Bai went to his house and called his father-in-law Jhingai and brother-in- law Ramlal. They came on the spot and Ramlal told the appellants not to throw the bricks. Hearing this, appellant Kaushal inflicted two blows of axe on the head of Ramlal and said loudly to kill him. Thereafter, other appellants started beating Ramlal by lathi. Her father-in-law Jhingai was already beaten by the appellants prior to beating of Ramlal. Laxmi Bai tried to intervene and save her brother-in-law Ramlal then the appellant Ramlal had inflicted a blow of lathi on her hand and elbow. The incident was witnessed by Ram Gopal, Ram Sajivan and Balak Kachhi. Thereafter, appellants ran away from the spot.
16. In cross-examination, Laxmi Bai had admitted that at the time of incident when Jhingai asked Kaushal not to throw the bricks, Kaushal assaulted him. Thereafter, Ramlal and Laxmi Bai were beaten. There is a omission -11- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. in her police statement Ex.D-2 regarding the fact that all the appellants came together on the spot armed with lathi and axe before the incident.
17. Smt. Rajkali (PW-8) is the wife of deceased Ramlal. She deposed that at the time of incident, the wife and grand-daughter-in-law of Kaushal were throwing the bricks kept by Jhingai on his land and other appellants were dismantling the hut constructed by Jhingai. She tried to stop them, meanwhile Jhingai and Laxmi Bai arrived there and told the appellants not to throw the bricks. Thereafter, appellants started beating Rajkali, Laxmi Bai and Jhingai. Seeing the quarrel,deceased Ramlal came there and tried to intervene, then appellant Kaushal inflicted blows of axe on his head and neck. Receiving the injury, he fell down on the ground, thereafter, appellants ran away. Except Kaushal, this witness has not stated clearly describing the role played by each appellants in beating the complainant and other witnesses. She has made a omnibus statement against other appellants.
18. Laxman Prasad Dhobi (PW-3) deposed that at the time of incident, appellant Kaushal was constructing his hut on the disputed land after dismantling the hut of Jhingai. The ladies of family of Kaushal were throwing the bricks kept there. Seeing this, Jhingai came and asked Kaushal not to do so. Then, Kaushal assaulted him by lathi. Thereafter, Ramlal arrived there and tried to prevent Kaushal, then Kaushal assaulted him by inflicting blows of axe on his head. Seeing this, this witness -12- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. Laxman Prasad asked Kaushal not to beat Ramlal. The six persons, who were also present with Kaushal, had also assaulted Ramlal. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.He has not described specific role played by each appellant except Kaushal.
19. Ram Sajivan (PW-5) deposed that at the time of incident, Kaushal and his wife were constructing a hut on there land Khasra No.412/3. The deceased Ramlal came there and objected to it and a quarrel took place there. Both parties were abusing each other, then Kaushal inflicted blows of axe on Ramlal, he fell down on the ground. Then, other appellants Triveni, Brijbhan, Panna lal and Shyam Lal also assaulted Ramlal by lathies. They also assaulted Jhingai and Laxmi Bai and Rajkali.
20. Ram Gopal (PW-6) deposed that the incident took place in front of his house. His house is adjacent to disputed land. At the time of incident, appellant Kaushal came on the spot and started dismantling the hut of Ramlal, Ramlal came there and tried to prevent Kaushal , then Kaushal assaulted him. Thereafter, Kaushal assaulted Jhingai and ladies of his families. Other appellants had not participated in commission of crime.
21. Shiv Balak (PW-9) deposed that at the time of incident, appellant Kaushal and ladies of his family were throwing away the bricks kept on the spot, deceased Ram Lal came there and told Kaushal not to throw the bricks, then Kaushal started beating Ramlal and Jhingai. Five persons were also present on the spot with Kaushal.
-13-Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
22. Thus, from the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the dispute arose when the wife and daughter-in-law of Kaushal started throwing away the bricks kept by complainant Jhingai on the disputed land. In the FIR Ex.P-1, it is not stated by Jhingai that all the appellants came together on the spot. It appears that at the beginning of the incident, Kaushal was present on the spot. When Jhingai told him not to throw the bricks, then Kaushal assaulted Jhingai by lathi. Thereafter, appellants Triveni and Panna Lal arrived on the spot and they assaulted Jhingai by lathi. Jhingai raised the alarm hearing this, his son Ramlal and daughter-in-law Laxmi Bai came there and tried to intervene, then appellant Brij Bhan and Ram Lal came there. Thereafter, Kaushal assaulted Ram Lal by giving the blows of axe on his head. In cross-examination Para 7 also, Jhingai verified above facts. Laxmi Bai (PW-2) has stated in her evidence that all the appellants came together on the spot but this fact is not mentioned in her police statement Ex.D-2. Therefore, above statement of Laxmi Bai cannot be relied upon. Ram Sajivan (PW-5) in cross-examination Para 5 deposed that at the time of incident, when quarrel started, only appellant Kaushal, his wife and daughter-in-law were present on the spot. Deceased Ram Lal came there and both parties started abusing each other and thereafter, Kaushal assaulted Ram Lal and Jhingai. This indicates that the other appellants came on the spot during quarrel. Another eye -14- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. witnesses Ram Gopal (PW-6) also stated that only Kaushal had assaulted Ram Lal and Jhingai. He has not stated that other appellants have participated in commission of crime.
23. This shows that there was a sudden quarrel on account of possession of the land by appellant Kaushal. His wife and daughter-in-law were throwing the bricks in order to take possession of land. When Jhingai objected to it Kaushal abused him. A quarrel took place there and Kaushal assaulted Jhingai by Lathi. Thereafter appellants Triveni and Pannalal arrived there. Then deceased Ramlal came on the spot and tried to intervene, thereafter appellants Brijbhan and Ramlal came there. This clearly establishes that all the appellants did not come together on the spot. There is no prior concert of mind. They came on the spot during quarrel. It is also established that the fight taking place as a result of heated passion and without any pre-meditation. Question of forming unlawful assembly or a common object does not arise.
24. In the case law Lalji and Others Vs. The State of U.P. (1974) 3 SCC 295 it is observed that:-
"In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants who were present in front of their hut formed an unlawful assembly, or had a common object to do any of the acts mentioned in the five clauses of Section 141, IPC. As there was no premeditation and the occurrence was a sudden affair, each of the appellants, should be held to be liable for his individual act and not vicariously liable for the acts of others."-15-
Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P.
25. In Mariadasan and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Varuvel and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1980) 3 SCC 68 Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"In a sudden heated altercation and fight between two parties, deceased who tried to intervene, fatally assaulted on a spur of moment. Held on facts, no lawful assembly formed at any time with common object of assaulting or killing the deceased."
26. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there was no unlawful assembly formed by the appellants and the incident took place during quarrel between Jhingai and appellant Kaushal on account of removal of bricks from the spot. The incident took place on the land Khasra No.412/3, which is purchased by Kaushal from Smt. Raju W/o Ram Lal. This fact is verified by Patwari Buddha Sen Prajpati (PW-13) who prepared the spot map (Ex.P/6). Deceased Ram Lal was beaten when he tried to intervene in the quarrel. The incident occurred in a spur of moment. The eye witness Ram Gopal (PW-6) and Smt. Raj Kali (PW-8) had categorically deposed that only appellant Kaushal had assaulted the deceased Ram Lal. Raj Kali is the wife of deceased. Considering the testimonies of witnesses PW-6 and PW-8 it is evident that except Kaushal other appellants have not assaulted the deceased. This clearly indicates that the appellants were not having intention to kill the deceased. In view of aforesaid evidence, it is not proved that the appellants have formed an unlawful assembly with an object to kill the deceased. The trial Court on erroneous appreciation of evidence has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that there was an unlawful assembly and appellants were members of assembly. The trial Court has wrongly -16- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. convicted the appellants with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. Each appellants is liable for his individual act.
27. Considering the testimonies of witnesses Jhingai (PW-1), Laxmi Bai (PW-2), Laxman Prasad (PW-3), Ram Kali (PW-5), Ram Gopal (PW-6) and Raj Kali (PW-8), it is found that Kaushal has assaulted the complainant Jhingai and his son deceased Ram Lal. He has inflicted two blows of axe on head of the deceased and one injury on his hand and right leg. The deceased died of injuries caused on his head. This shows the intention of Kaushal to commit murder. Therefore, it is proved that Kaushal has inflicted simple injuries to Jhingai and committed murder of Ram Lal, which is punishable under Sections 323 and 302 of IPC.
28. So far as other appellants are concerned, it appears that appellants Triveni and Panna Lal had assaulted Jhingai by lathi and inflicted simple injuries. Laxmi Bai (PW-2) deposed that only appellant Ram Lal had inflicted injuries by lathi on his head and hand. Therefore, offence of Section 323 of IPC is proved against appellant Triveni, Panna Lal and Ram Lal.
29. The name of appellant Shyam Lal is not mentioned in FIR (Ex.P/1). It is not stated that Shyam Lal was present on the spot at the time of incident. Jhingai (PW-
1) and Laxmi Bai (PW-2) have made omnibus statements that Shyam Lal had assaulted the deceased by lathi. But, other eye witness Ram Gopal (PW-6) and Raj Kali (PW-8) denied this fact and deposed that only Kaushal had -17- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. beaten the deceased, this creates the doubt on involvement of Shyam Lal in commission of crime.
Therefore, it is not proved beyond doubt that appellant Shyam Lal was present on the spot and he had also caused injuries to deceased Ram Lal or Laxmi Bai. The trial Court has committed error in convicting Shyam Lal for commission of offence under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 of IPC. His bail bond stands discharged.
30. The case of Brij Bhan is also similar to Shyam Lal. Jhingai (PW-1) deposed that Brij Bhan had assaulted Laxmi Bai by lathi but Laxmi Bai does not say so and deposed that only Ram Lal had beaten her. Therefore, we cannot believe the statement of Jhingai in this regard. It is not proved that Brij Bhan had assaulted Laxmi Bai. The trial Court has committed error in convicting Brij Bhan for commission of offence under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 of IPC. His bail bond stands discharged.
31. In view of aforesaid discussion we set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 of IPC on appellants Shyam Lal and Brij Bhan and they are acquitted of the charge of aforesaid offence.
32. We set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court under Sections 148, 323/149 and 302/149 of IPC to appellants Brij Bhan, Triveni and Ram Lal. These appellants are held guilty for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to -18- Cr.A.No.449/2006 Kaushal Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P. undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.500/-. The appellants have already remained in custody for more than six months, therefore, giving set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., treating their sentence as undergone, they be released. Their bails bonds stand discharged.
33. The conviction and sentence of appellant Kaushal Prasad awarded by the trial Court under Sections 148 and 323/149 is set-aside and he is acquitted of charges of these offences. Appellant Kaushal Prasad is found guilty for committing murder of deceased Ram Lal and causing simply injury to Jhingai. Therefore, he is convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for life and imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/- respectively. Both sentence shall run concurrently and appellant is also entitled for set off.
34. The appeal is partially allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence of trial Court is modified as mentioned hereinabove.
(S.K. Gangele) (Anurag Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
Vin**
Digitally signed by
VINOD SHARMA
Date: 2018.01.22
23:07:08 -08'00'