Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kailash vs State Of M.P. on 28 September, 2022
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar, Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 28th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 634 of 2009
KAILASH S/O RAMSWAROOP, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION VILL.MALVASI
1 POLICE STATION RAVATI DISTT.RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. THR.PS.RAVATI THR.AJK RATLAM
DISTT.RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE )
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 699 of 2009
BABULAL S/O NANDU GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 53
1 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRIL. VILL.DABADI
PS.RAWATI,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAKESH S/O BABUALAL GURJAR , AGED ABOUT
2 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI. VILL.DABADI
PS.RAWATI,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
3 DILIP S/O NANDU GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI. VILL.DABADI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-09-2022
14:42:37
2
PS.RAWATI,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
GUDDU @ BHANWARLAL S/O BHERULAL
GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
4 AGRI. VILL.DABADI PS.RAWATI,RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
JAMNALAL S/O NANDU GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 33
5 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI. VILL.DABADI
PS.RAWATI,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHANTILAL S/O NANDU GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 45
6 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI. VILL.DABADI
PS.RAWATI,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
GANESH S/O NANDU GURJAR , AGED ABOUT 40
7 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI. VILL.DABADI
PS.RAWATI,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF M.P. THRU.PS.RAWATI
THR.PS.AJK,RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1154 of 2009
STATE OF M.P. THR. PS RAWATI THR.AKJ
1 DISTT.RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-09-2022
14:42:37
3
(BY SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE )
AND
RAMSWROOP S/O KISHANLAL MEENA , AGED
1 ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
GRAM MALWASI (MADHYA PRADESH)
SURESH S/O RAMSWAROOP, AGED ABOUT 25
2 YEARS, VILLAGE MALWASI (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAJU @ RAJEEV S/O SHANTILAL MEENA , AGED
3 ABOUT 34 YEARS, VILLAGE MALWASI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
BABULAL S/O NANDU GURJAR AGE-30 YEARS,
4 OCCU. AGRICULTURIST, R/O- VILLAGE MALWASI
RAKESH S/O BABULAL GURJAR AGE 53 YEARS,
5 OCCU. AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE DABDI,
DIST. RATLAM
DILIP S/O NANDU GURJAR AGE 30 YEARS, OCCU.
6 AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE DABDI
GUDDU @ BHANWARLAL S/O BHERULAL
7 GURJAR, AGE 33 YEARS, OCCU. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O VILLAGE DABDI
JAMNALAL S/O NANDU GURJAR, AGE 45 YEARS,
8 OCCUP. AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE DABDI
SHANTILAL S/O NANDU GURJAR, AGE 45 YEARS,
9 OCCU. AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE DABDI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-09-2022
14:42:37
4
GANESH S/O NANDU GURJAR, AGE 40 YEARS,
10 OCCU. AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE DABDI
RAMESH S/O GOWARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 43
11 YEARS, VILLAGE DABDI (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAILASH S/O RAMSWAROOP, AGE 24 YEARS,
12 OCCU. AGRICULTURIST, R/O VILLAGE MALWASI,
DIST. RATLAM
MUKESH S/O RAMSWAROOP , AGED ABOUT 27
13 YEARS, VILLAGE MALWASI DIST. RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ASHISH GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
No.1, 2, 3 and 5 AND SHRI HIMANSHU THAKUR,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.4 )
Reserved on : 20/07/2022
Delivered on : 28/09/2022
____________________________________________________
This appeal coming on for order/judgment this day,
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR passed the
following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
(Passed on 28/09/2022) 1] This judgement shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No.634/2009, filed on behalf of appellant Kailash, Criminal Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 5 Appeal No.699/2009 filed on behalf of appellants Bablu, Rakesh, Dilip, Guddu @ Bhanwarlal, Jamnalal, Shantilal and Ganesh, and Criminal Appeal No.1154/2009 filed by the State. These appeal are arising out of the judgement dated 01/05/2009 passed in Special Case No.46/2006 by the learned Special Judge under S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ratlam (M.P.) whereby learned Judge of the Trial Court, while acquitting all the accused persons under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has convicted them as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Accused Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
Kailash 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Babulal 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Rakesh 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Dilip 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Guddu @ 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
Bhanwarlal 449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-09-2022
14:42:37
6
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Jamnalal 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Shantilal 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Ganesh 302/149, 148, IPC Life 1000/- 1 Year RI / 3
449, 325/149, imprisonment / 2 each Months RI
324/149, Years RI, 7 Years five times
323/149 RI, 2 Year RI, 2
Years RI, 1 Year
RI respectively
Following accused persons have been acquitted by the learned Judge of the Trial Court for charges as mentioned herein below against which the State has filed Cr.A.No.1154/2009 :-
Ramswaroop Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, acquitted 323/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act Suresh Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, acquitted 323/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act Raju @ Rajeev Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, acquitted 323/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act Ramesh Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, acquitted 323/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act Mukesh Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, acquitted 323/149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act 2] In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the complainant (PW/3) Bablu @ Sandeep S/o Rajkumar, a resident of village Malvasi, District Ratlam lives along with his father Rajkumar. Nearby their house, there is an open plot, regarding which the complainant and the accused persons were having some dispute in the Court also and because of which an enmity was also Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 7 going on between the parties. It is alleged that on 02/11/2005, at around 9:30 pm, when the complainant's father deceased Rajkumar and uncle, deceased Vishnu Prasad were feeding their cattle in the house, and, deceased Rama Bheel and deceased Hariya Bheel were having some conversation in front of their house at that time, the appellants herein as also other five acquitted accused persons came to their house, armed with various weapons and told Hariya and Rama Bheel that they would finish Rajkumar and his relatives residing with him, and at that time, in order to save themselves, complainant's father, his uncle Vishnu Prasad, Hariya and Rama entered into the house and closed the doors but the accused persons persisted in their efforts and broke the cement sheet roof of the house and entered from roof gap in the house. They brought out the complainant's father Rajkumar, his uncle Vishnu Prasad, Hariya and Rama Bheel and started assaulting them with various weapons which they brought with them. After the accused persons exited from the spot, the complainant saw that his father was lying unconscious in front of the house having many injuries, Hariya Bheel was lying dead behind the railway station, both his legs were broken and had injuries all over his body and nearby Rama Bheel was also lying in injured state, he had a head injury and other injuries also. Complainant Sandeep's uncle Vishnu Prasad's body was also lying behind a bench at the railway station platform and his head and face were torn and he also had various injuries on his person. Complainant Pw/3 Sandeep also tried to Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 8 intervene in the matter but he was also assaulted by the accused persons and thus he also suffered injuries on his right hand and left leg. Dehati Naleshi Ex.P/9 was got recorded by Sandeep Yadav at 22:15 hours in respect of the incident which took place at 21:30 hours on 02/11/2005. After the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed, the case was tried by the Trial Court and the learned judge of the trial court, after recording the evidence, while acquitted all the accused persons from Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has also acquitted five accused persons from all the charges, however, found the appellants hereinabove guilty and sentenced them accordingly as aforesaid, hence these appeals. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No.1154/2009 against the acquittal of all the accused persons under the provisions of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the acquittal of five accused persons under the substantive charges of IPC.
3] Although the Dehati Naleshi was filed against 16 persons, however, accused Ramprasad has died during the course of trial whereas accused Ravindra S/o Babulal Gurjar and Sanjay S/o Ramesh Gurjar were juvenile and were tried before the juvenile Court.
4] Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case and the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 9 despite the fact that on the same set of allegations, five identically placed accused persons have already been acquitted. It is further submitted that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred in holding that there was an unlawful assembly of the accused persons with a common intention to commit the murder of 1.Rajkumar Yadav, 2.Vishnu Prasad, 3.Hariya Bheel and 4.Rama Bheel and causing injuries to Mishrilal, Sandeep, Shaitan and Pradeep. Counsel have also submitted that the entire story of the prosecution is a cooked up story which is apparent from the deposition of PW/3 Sandeep who is the son of deceased Rajkumar and although as per Dehati Naleshi Ex.P/9, the time of incident is said to be 21:30 hours whereas the Dehati Naleshi is said to have been lodged at 22:15 hours i.e. within one hour's time. However, as per the deposition of PW/3 Sandeep, in para 43, he has clearly stated that he did not inform anything to the police personnel in the night of the incident, however, the police has lodged the report in the morning only. 5] It is further submitted that the injuries suffered by the injured Mishrilal, Sandeep, Shaitan and Pradeep have not been explained by the prosecution which itself dents the whole prosecution story and its benefit ought to have been given to the appellants. It is further submitted that even as per the Dehati Naleshi Ex.P/9, the entire incident has occurred at one place only i.e. the house of the complainant Sandeep, however, the bodies of the deceased persons have been recovered from various other places which also demonstrate that the incident is different from the one which is Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 10 projected by the prosecution. It is further submitted that despite the fact that the cement sheets of the roof of the house was broken by the appellants, no such recovery has also been made during the investigation which renders the story of the prosecution unreliable. 6] It is further submitted that undue reliance has been placed on the material prosecution witnesses namely Rani Bai PW/1 wife of the deceased Rajkumar, Sandeep PW/3 son of deceased Rajkumar, Subhadra Bai PW/4 W/o Vishnu Prasad and Ramkishore PW/15, the father of deceased Rajkumar, Vishnu Prasad, and PW/7 Pradeep Kumar another son of Rajkumar and PW/9 Shaitan. It is submitted that PW/8 Mishrilal is an independent witness and has not named the appellant Kailash in his deposition but still his statement has also been relied upon. It is submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated only because of their relationship / affinity with each other, and the learned Judge of the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective. Thus, it is submitted that as the appellants who have already suffered more than 16 years period of incarceration, deserves to be acquitted.
7] Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that it is a case of quadruple murder. The appellants came to the spot armed with deadly weapons and committed murder of four persons and in such circumstances, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and no illegality has been committed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 11 the learned Judge of the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence and convicting the appellants as aforesaid. It is thus submitted that the appeals be dismissed.
8] In Cr.A. No.1154/2009 which has been preferred by the State against acquittal of accused persons viz., Ramswaroop, Suresh, Raju @ Rajeev, Ramesh, and Mukesh, it is submitted that there was no distinguishing features in respect of these accused persons which may put their case in a different frame, other than the one in which the remaining accused persons have been convicted. It is further submitted that distinction made by the learned Judge that it is not possible that these accused persons would remained on the spot till the other accused persons are brought to the spot by the accused Kailash, is a finding based upon mere conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Susanta Das and others Vs. State of Orissa reported as (2016) 4 SCC 371 and in the case of Karan Singh Vs. State of UP and others reported as (2022) 6 SCC 52. 9] Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Cr.A. No.1154/2009 has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in acquitting the appellants as it has been found that they were not involved in the aforesaid case and no overt act has been attributed to them. In support of his contention, Shri Gupta has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dheerendra Singh @ Dheeru Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 12 and another Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2019 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) 676. 10] Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
11] The broader facts of the case are that on 02/11/2005, at around 21:30 hours the incident took place in which 4 persons namely Rajkumar S/o Ramkishore, Vishnu S/o Ramkishore, Hariya and Rama were murdered allegedly by 16 accused persons whose names have also been mentioned in Dehati Naleshi Ex.P/9. Out of these 16 persons, accused Ramswaroop, Suresh, Raju @ Rajeev, Ramesh and Mukesh have already been acquitted by the Trial Court whereas the other accused persons, except the two juveniles namely Ravindra S/o Babulal Gurjar and Sanjay S/o Ramesh Gurjar, have been convicted as aforesaid.
12] So far as the death of deceased Rajkumar, Vishnu, Hariya and Rama is concerned, all the death were homicidal in nature as has been proved by the prosecution witness PW/20 Dr. Kripal Singh Rathore who had found the following external injuries on each of the deceased persons:-
**fnukad 3-11-05 dks ftyk fpfdRlky; jryke esa esfMdy vkfQlj ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA mDr fnukad dks vkj{kd lquhy ua-502 Fkkuk jkoVh }kjk e`rd jkek firk ukFkw mez 35 o"kZ] fu- eyoklh Fkkuk joVh dks esjs ikl 'ko ijh{k.k ds fy, yk;k FkkA 'ko dks ukFkw firk Hkhyk mez 65 lky tks mldk firk Fkk mlus igpkuk FkkA eSus 'ko ijh{k.k fdk Fkk mldh ckg~; fLFkfr fuEukuqlkj Fkh%& lkekU; dn dkBh dk 'kjhj ejpqjh Vscy ij iMk gqvk FkkA mldh nksuksa vka[ks can FkhA eqag vk/kk [kqyk gqvk Fkk mlds iwjs 'kjhj ij e`R;q i'pkr dh vdMu FkhA og vklekuh dqrkZ rFkk lQsn ftles yky ftles dkyj Fkh dk Vh'kVZ dRFkbZ dyj dh vaMj fo;j csaxuh jax dh isaV Fkh mlds 'kjhj ij e`R;q i'pkr dh LVsfuax izstsaV FkhA mlds 'kjhj ij fuEukuqlkj ckgjh pksVsa FkhA Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 13 1 mldh nksuks vka[ks uhyh gksdj ,d dVk gqvk ?kko ckbZa vkbczks ij 1x1 ls- eh- dk FkkA 2 mlds ,d flyk gqvk ?kko ekFks ij 2x2x2 ls-eh- dk FkkA mlds lkFk gh cka;s vkchZVy Qkslk QzsDpj FkkA 3 lwtu cka;s xky ij 2x2 ls-eh- blds lkFk gh esfDtyk QzsDpj FkkA 4 dVk iVk ?kko mijh gksB ij cka;s lkbM 3x1x1 ls-eh- 5 mlds ukd dh gM+Mh VwVh gqbZ FkhA 6 dVk QVk ?kko BksMh ij cka;s lkbM esaA 7 nka;s lkbM es dVk QVk ?kko BksMh ij Fkk 2x1 ls-eh- mlds lkFk gh esaMhiy QzsDpj FkkA 8 mijh nkar fgys gq, FksA 9 lwtu cka;s da/ks ds mijh fgLls ij 4x4 ls-eh- mlds lkFk gh da/kk mrjk gqvk FkkA 10 cMh lwtu cka;h tka?k ij ftlesa Qhej gM+Mh VwVh gqbZ Fkh mlds vanj elYl esa [kwu ds FkDds tes gq, FksA 11 dVs QVs ?kko nka;s isj ds vkxs dh vksj ftudh la[;k rhu Fkh 2x1x1/2 ls-eh- izR;sdA vkarfjd ijh+{k.k% 2- [kksIkMh esa esaMhij] esfDtyk] estj cksu QzsDpj Fkh vkSj QzsDpj ds LFkku ij jDr ds FkDds tes FksA QzUVy cksu dk cka;k fgLlk QzsDpj gksdj dbZ VqdMs FksA M;wjkesVj ds uhps djhc 200 lh-lh- CyM tek gqvk FkkA Mw;jkesVj dkVus ij ogka ls czsu esVj ckgj vk jgk FkkA pksV dh otg ls mldk czsu vxys fgLls esa dqpyk x;k FkkA o{k mldh Lokl uyh nksuks QsQM-s rFkk isjhdkfM;e Qsy FksA g~n; ds nka;s fgLls es CyM FkkA cka;k fgLlk [kkyh FkkA mnj& vkarks dh f>Yyh eqga ] xzkl uyh rFkk xzluh Qsy FkhA mlds isV ds vanj CyM XyklM FksA NksVh rFkk cM-h vkar jDrghu gksdj xSl rFkk ey Hkjk gqvk FkkA yhoj jDrghu FkkA fLifyu datLVsM Fkk mlds nksuksa xqnsZ Qsy FksA ew= dh FkSyh [kkyh FkhA ckgjh tusfudz;k LoLF; FkhA 3- lkFk es vklekuh lQsn] yky Vh'kVZ] dRFkbZ dyj dh vaMjfo;j] csaxuh jax dh isaV lhy isd dj iqfyl dks nh FkhA' vfHker%& jkek firk ukFkw mez 35 lky fu- eyoklh Fkkuk jkoVh dh e`R;q mlds okbVy vkxZul ij pksVds dkj.k ¼czsu½ ftlls mldks csgk'k gqvk vkSj e`R;q gks xbZA e`R;q ijh{k.k ds 24 ?kaVs ds vanj dh FkhA esjs }kjk nh xbZ fjiksVZ iz-ih 69 ih- 69 gS ftlds , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA 4- mlh fnukad dks e`rd jktdqekj dk ijh{k.k esjs }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA e`rd jktdqekj dks dkaLVscy lquhy ua- 508 Fkkuk jkoVh }kjk esjs ikl ijh{k.k ds fy, yk;k FkkA e`rd dks jkefd'kksj firk ednwe ;kno tks mldk firk Fkk mlus igpkuk FkkA ckg~; ijh{k.k%& mldk 'kjhj lkekU; dn dkBh dk gksdj ejpqjh Vscy ij lh/kk ysVk gqvk FkkA mldh nksuksa vka[ks rFkk eqag can Fkh iqrfy;k Qsyh gqbZ rFkk fLFkj Fkh mlds iwjs 'kjhj ij e`R;q i'pkr dh vdMu FkhA mlds fiNys fgLls ij e`R;q Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 14 i'pkr dk dyj cny x;k FkkA mlus lQsn pks[kMh dh 'kVZ] lQsn cfu;ku] uhyh vaMj fo;j rFkk xzs dyj dh isaV igu j[kh FkhA mlds 'kjhj ij fuEufyf[kr ckgjh pksVs ikbZ xbZA 1- dVk QVk ?kko nka;s isj ds uhps fgLls ij ftles mldh Vhfc;k Q~;wfcyk gM~Mh dVh gqbZ Fkh vkSj VwV xbZ FkhA ml ij jDr ds FkDds tes gq, FksA 2- mlds cka;s iats ij [kjksps 3x3 ls-eh-A 3- lwtu lh/ks gkFk dh 11 oh ilyh ij 10x3 ls-eh- bl pksV ds uhps jDr ds FkDds FksA 4- dVk gqvk ?kko vkDlhihVy cksu ij 5x2 ls-eh- gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rdA ftlls mldh vkDlhihVy cksu ij QzsDpj FkkA mldh isjkbVy cksu ds mij rFkk peMh ds uhps djhc 100 ,e- ,e- jDr ds FkDds FksA 5- lwtu nka;s da/ks ds mij fgLls ij 2x2 ls-eh-A vkarfjd ijh+{k.k%& 1- [kksiMh& vkDlhihVy rFkk isjkbVy cksu QzsDpj Fkh efLr"d dh f>fYy;ks ij lwtu FkhA mlds czsu ds lh/ks fgLls ij djhc 200 ,e- ,y- jDr ds FkDds Fks tks czsu dks nck jgs FksA czsu d mij lwtu FkhA o{k%& lh/ks gkFk dh 11oh ilyh QzsDpj FkhA mldh 'okluyh] nksuksa QsQMs] jDrghu FksA cka;s QsQMs es dkys jax ds /kCcs] FksA g~n; ds nksuks psEcj [kkyh FksA mnj%& ijnk] vkarks dh f>Yyh] eqag rFkk xzluh jDrghu fLFkfr es FksA ,CMkeuy dsfoVh es yxHkx 1500 ,e- ,y- jDr ds FkDds ik, x,A isV ds vanj djhc lkS ,e-,y- rjy inkFkZ FkkA NksVh rFkk cMh vkar es xSl rFkk ey Hkjk gqvk FkkA yhoj dk nkfguk fgLlk jIpj Fkk ftldh lkbTk 7x3x3 ls-eh- FkhA mldk fLifyu jDrghu FkkA nkabZ fdMuh es jIpj FkkA cka;h fdMuh jDrghu fLFkfr es FkhA is'kkc dh FkSyh [kkyh FkhA ckgjh tuukax LoLF; FksA 3- mlds lkFk lQsn pks[kMh dh 'kVZ] lQsn cfu;ku] uhyh vaMjfo;j xzs dyj dh isaV iqfyl dks lhy iSd dj nh FkhA esjs erkuqlkj jktdqekj firk jkefd'kksj fu- eyoklh Fkkuk jkoVh dh e`R;q] e`R;q iwoZ pksVs yxus ds dkj.k gqbZ FkhA mldh pksVs okbVy vkxZul efLr'd] yhoj rFkk fdMuh ij FkhA ftlls vR;f/kd jDr L=ko gksus ls mldh e`R;q gqbZA e`R;q 24 ?kaVs ds vanj dh FkhA esjs }kjk nh xbZ 'ko ijh{k.k fjiksVZ iz-ih- 70 gS ftlds , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA 4- blh fnukad dks mlh vkj{kd }kjk e`rd fo".kq firk jkefd'kksj mez 35 Ok"kZ fu- eyoklh dk 'ko ijh+{k.k gsrq yk;k FkkA 'ko dks jkefd'kksj firk ednwe ;kno ds }kjk igpkuk x;k FkkA e`Rkd dk 'ko lkekU; dn dkBh dk Fkk mls lh/kk ejpqjh Vscy ij ysVk;k Fkk mldh nksuks vka[ks o eqag can FkkA mlds psgjs dk vkdkj ?kko ds dkj.k cnyk gqvk FkkA mldh iqrfy;k Qsyh gqbZ rFkk fLFkj FkhA iwjs 'kjhj ij e`R;q i'pkr dh vdMu FkhA mlds 'kjhj ij yky pksdMh dh Vh'kVZ] [kwu ls luh gqbZA csaxuh dyj dh cfu;ku tks [kwu ls luh Fkh uhyh vaMj fo;j rFkk [kkdh jax dh isaV Fkh ftl ij dkyk peMs dk csYV FkkA mlds 'kjhj ij fuEufyf[kr ?kko FksA 1- mlds psgjs ij ,d cMk dVk gqvk ?kko tks e/;js[kk ds cka;h rjQ gksdj ekFks ls LVkVZ gksdj BksMh rd FkkA ftldh yackbZ 23 ls-eh- pkSMkbZ 5 ls-eh- o Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 15 xgjkbZ 9 ls-eh- FkhA blesa QzUVy cksu] esty cksu] esfDtyk] rFkk esaMhcy nks VqdMks es cV xbZ FkhA 2- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;h vka[k ds ckgjh rjQ 15x2 ls-eh- 5 ls-eh- xgjk tks ua- 1 ?kko ds lekukarj FkkA 3- dVk gqvk ?kko lh/ks gkFk dh e/; vaxqyh ij 3x1x2 ls-eh-A 4- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s gkFk dh ehfMy fQaxj ij 3x1@2x1@4 ls-eh-
5- ,d ?kksik gqvk ?kko cka;s ,Dftyk es 3x2x4 ls-eh-A 6- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;h Hkqtk ij 3x1x1 ls-eh-A 7- lwtu vkDlhihVy jhtu ij 4x4 ls-eh-A bu lc pksVksa ds Åij jDr ds FkDds tes gq, FksA 8- lwtu Nkrh ij 30x3 ls-eh-A vkarfjd ijh{k.k%& 5- mldh esaMhcy] usty cksu] QzUVy cksu] esfDtyk cksu] QzsDpj FkhA efLr"d dh f>fYy;ka dUtLVsM FkhA mlds czsu ds vxys fgLls ij djhc 250 ,e-,y- jDr ds FkDds tes gq, FksA czsu ij lwtu FkhA mlds lcMw;jy jhtu esa 250 ,e-,y- fgeksMksek FkkA 6- o{k&cka;s lkbM dh pksFkh rFkk iakpoh ilyh QzsDpj FkhA nka;s lkbM dh 7osa uacj dh ilyh QzsDpj FkhA mldk QqlQql dUtLVsM FkkA nkfgus rFkk cka;s QsQM+s ij pksV ds dkj.k lwtu FkhA g`n; ds nksuksa fgLls jDrghu FksA 7- ,CMkeuy dsfcVh esa djhc 500 ,e-,y- CyM XykMj Hkjs Fks mldk inkZ] vkarksa dh f>Yyh] jDrghu FksA mlds isV ds vanj djhc 150 ,e-,y- rjy inkFkZ FkkA NksVh vkar rFkk cM+h vkar jDrghu FkhA yhoj dk nkfguk fgLlk jIpj FkkA mldh fdMuh jIpj FkhA ew=k'k; dh FkSyh [kkyh Fkh ckgjh tusfUnz;k LoLF; Fkh e`rd ds lkFk yky pksdM+h dh 'kVZ] cSaxuh cfu;ku] uhyh vaMjfo;j] [kkdh isaV dkyk csYV lhyisd djds fn;k FkkA vfHker%& fo".kq firk jkefd'kksj mez 35 lky /kkjk jkoVh dh e`R;q e`R;q iwoZ okbVy vkxZu ij vkbZ pksVks ds dkj.k gqbZ FkhA e`R;q ijh{k.k ds 24 ?kaVs ds vanj dh FkhA e`rd fo".kq ds 'ko ijh{k.k dh fjiksVZ iz-ih- 71 gSA ftlds , ls , Hkkx ih- 71 ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA 8- blh fnukad dks ,-,l-vkbZ-vkj-,l- fcyoky ds }kjk gfj;k firk fnR;k mez 40 o"kZ tkfr Hkhy fu-xzke eyoklh dk 'ko Hkh 'ko ijh{k.k gsrq yk;k Fkk ftls mlds HkkbZ Fkkojk firk fnR;k }kjk igpkuk x;k FkkA 'ko ejpqjh Vscy ij lh/kk ysVk Fkk tks lkekU; dn dkBh dk Fkk mlds eqag rFkk vka[ksa can Fkh iqrfy;k Qsyh gqbZ rFkk fLFkj FkhA e`R;q i'pkr dh vdM+u mlds 'kjhj ij FkhA og gYdk ihyk dqrkZ] csaxuh cfu;ku] lQsn /kksrh igus Fkk tks [kwu ls luh FkhA mlds 'kjhj ij fuEufyf[kr ckgjh pksVsa FkhA 1- lwtu nkabZ vxz Hkqtk ij 4x3 ls-eh-A ftldh nksuksa gFksfy;k [kwu rFkk /kwy ls luh FkhA 2- uhys dyj dk lwtu cka;h Hkqtk ij 5x4 ls-eh- ftlds lkFk g`;wejl cksu QzsDpj FkhA Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 16 3- lwtu Nkrh ij vkxs dh vksj 33x3 ls-eh-A 4- cM+k dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s iSj ij vkxs rFkk ckgjh lkbM ij 15x5x7 ls-eh- xgjkbZ ftlls Vhfc;k rFkk Q~;wcyk cksu dV xbZ FkhA ?kko ds vanj eV~Vh rFkk /kwy rFkk [wku ds FkDds Hkjs gq, FksA 5- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s iSj ij ftlls mldk ekal dVk gqvk Fkk vkSj Vhfc;k rFkk Q~;wfcyk cksu Åijh fgLls esa QzsDpj gks xbZ FkhA mlds nksuksa iSj [kwu esa lus gq, FksA 6- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;h tka?k ds ckgjh fgLls ij 6x2x1 ls-eh-A 7- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s ?kqVus ds ckgjh vksj 5x2x1 ls-eh-A 8- dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s iVsyk ds Åij 5x2x1 ls-eh-A 9- lwtu lh/ks dwYgs dh gM~Mh ds ÅijA 10- lwtu [kksiM+h ds Åij ftlls mldks jkbV isjkbVy cksu QzsDpj gks xbZ FkhaA vkarfjd ijh{k.k%& [kksiM+h & M;wjkesVj ds uhps djhc 50 ,e-,y- ds [kwu ds FkDds FksA efLr"d ij lwtu FkkA o{k & mlds QqlQql] daB] nksuksa QsQM+s jDrghu fLFkfr esa FksA g`n; ds nksuksa fgLls [kkyh FksA mnj & mldh inkZ] vkarksa dh f>Yyh] xzkluyh jDrghu fLFkfr esa Fkh isV ds vanj 150 ,e-,y- rjy inkFkZ FkkA NksVh vkar] cM+h ckar jDrghu FkhA mldk yhoj fLifyu] o xqnsZ jDrghu fLFkfr esa FksA eq=k'k; [kkyh ckgjh tusfUnz;k LoLF; FkhA e`rd ds lkFk esa gYdk ihyk dqrkZ] csaxuh cfu;ku lQsn /kksrh lhy isd dh xbZ FkhA vfHker %& gfj;k firk fnR;k mez 40 o"kZ fu-eyoklh jkoVh dh e`R;q vR;f/kd jDrL=ko gksus ls gqbZ FkhA vR;f/kd jDrL=ko dk dkj.k eYVhiy QszDpj gS ftlls mldks 'kkd mRiUu gqvk o e`R;q gks xbZA e`R;q 'ko ijh{k.k ds 24 ?kaVs ds vanj dh FkhaA e`rd gfj;k dk 'ko ijh{k.k izfrosnu rS;kj fd;k Fkk tks iz-ih- 72 ih-72 gS ftlds , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA 9- fnukad 12-11-05 dks esjs }kjk ,d Dosjh fjiksVZ rS;kj dh Fkh mlds iwoZ Fkkuk vtkd jryke ls tIr'kqnk gfFk;kj izkIr gq, Fks muds laca/k esa eq>ls vfHker ekaxk x;k FkkA tks lhycan gfFk;kj esjs le{k yk;s x;s og fuEukuqlkj gS & 1- iqjkuh ykBh 134x11 ls-eh- Fkh ftlds eksVs fgLls ij [kwu dk fu'kku Fkk A 2- ,d ubZ ykBh tks 157x10 ls-eh- O;kl dh Fkh ftl lhus ij dkxt yxk;k ogka ij [wku dk fu'kku FkkA 3- ,d iqjkuh ykBh tks 126x9.5 ls-eh- Fkh ftlds Åij [kwu dk fu'kku eksVs fgLls ij FkkA 4- iqjkuh eksVh ykBh tks 134-11 ls-eh- ftlds fupys eksVs fgLls ij [wku yxk FkkA 5- ,d iqjkuh ykBh 144x9.5 ls-eh- ftl ij [kwu ds fu'kku FksA 6- ,d ubZ ykBh 143x10 ls-eh- ftl ij [kwu ds fu'kku FksA 7- iqjkuh ykBh yky gjs jax ls jaxh FkhA 8- ,d iqjkuh ykBh ftlds fupys fgLls ij [wku yxk FkkA 9- ,d iqjkuh ykBh ftlds fupys fgLls ij [wku yxk FkkA 10- ,d iqjkuh ykBh ftlds fupys fgLls ij [kwu yxk FkkA Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 17 ykfB;ksa dk ijh{k.k dj mUgsa okil lhy isd fd;k FkkA 11- ,d dqYgkM+h ftldk gR;k 70 ls-eh- Qy 9-3 ls-eh- ÅapkbZ 14-3 ls-eh- otu yxHkx ,d fdyks AA 12- ,d gYdh xqykch yky jad dh ftl ij uy dk ikbi osfYMax Fkk tks 105 ls-eh- ftl ij csaM yxk gqvk FkkA mldk Qy 13 ls-eh- mapk o 7 ls-eh- pkSM+k FkkA 13 /kkfj;k tks ckal dh ydM+h esa fQDl fd;k gqvk FkkA ydM+h dh yackbZ 136-5 ls- eh- Qy 33 ls-eh- pkSM+kbZ 5 ls-eh- A ml ij [kwu ds fu'kku FksA 14- /kkfj;k yksgs dh ikbi ij osYM fd;k dkys jax dk ml ij gjs jax dk gR;kj pkSM+kbZ 4-5 ls-eh-A 15- ryokj 76-7 ls-eh- yackbZ pkS- 4 ls-eh- ewBihry dh eNyh okyh 64-5 Qy Fkk mDr ryokj ij Hkh [kwu ds fu'kku FksA** 13] A query was also made to him regarding the weapons which have been seized from the accused persons, to which he has replied vide Ex.P/73 that the injuries suffered by the deceased persons can be caused by the weapons seized from the accused persons. 14] So far as the weapons seized from the accused persons are concerned, they are as under:
name of the accused weapons seized Article
Kailash Dharia FF
Babulal Lathi P
Rakesh Dharia Q
Dilip Lathi M
Guddu @ Bhanwarlal Lathi N
Jamnalal Lathi X
Shantilal Lathi U
Ganesh Lathi V
Ramswaroop Sword J
Suresh Lathi K
Raju @ Rajeev Lathi O
Ramesh Lathi W
Mukesh Sword Not sent for FSL
Ramprasad (dead) Kulhadi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-09-2022
14:42:37
18
(names of the accused persons highlighted have been acquitted by the trial court.) 15] During the course of trial, accused Ramprasad has died on 09/12/2008, whereas accused Ravindra S/o Babulal Gurjar and Sanjay S/o Ramesh Gurjar both being juvenile have been tried before the Juvenile Court.
16] The cause of dispute between the parties is a plot regarding which deceased Rajkumar and the accused Ramprasad were having differences. There are 5 eyewitnesses to the incident namely
1.PW/1 Ranibai the wife of deceased Rajkumar, 2.PW/3 Bablu @ Sandeep Yadav who is a neighbour, 3.PW/4 Subhadrabai who happens to be the wife of deceased Vishnu who also resides nearby Rajkumar's house, 4.PW/7 Pradeep Kumar Yadav, 5.PW/8 Mishrilal an injured eyewitness, 6.PW/9 Shaitan S/o Nuru @ Nuriya again an injured eyewitness. All these witnesses have either taken the names of all the accused persons or some of the accused persons as the persons who were present on the spot and participated in the incident. So far as lodging of Dehati Naleshi is concerned, a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record in this regard reveals that it appears to be an antedated document as according to the Dehati Naleshi, the date of incident is 02/11/2005 at around 9:30 in the night whereas the Dehati Naleshi itself was lodged at 22:15 i.e. 10:15 pm. On the face of this document it appears to be suspicious so far as the timing is concerned for the reason that in a case where as many as 4 murder have taken place Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 19 and many persons have also been injured, it is, if not impossible but is very improbable that the FIR would be lodged within a span of 45 minutes. This fact is also substantiated by the fact that the author of the Dehati Nalshi, the complainant Sandeep @ Bablu PW/3 has admitted in his examination-in-chief that the report was not lodged in the night although the police had already reached to the spot at around 11:00 O'clock. The report Ex.P/9 was lodged in the morning only, however, merely because Dehati Nalishi or the FIR are antedated, it cannot be presumed that the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be rejected and the evidence produced on record deserve to be discarded considering the fact that this is a case of four murders, this Court is required to go through the evidence cautiously.
17] So far as the incident is concerned, admittedly it has taken place on 02/11/2005, in the night although in the Dehati Naleshi, complainant Sandeep @ Bablu has stated that all accused persons came armed with various weapons and assaulted the deceased persons as well as the other injured witnesses, however, in their deposition before the Court, this version has slightly changed. 18] PW/1 Ranibai the wife of deceased Rajkumar has deposed that she knows all the accused persons present in the Court and has stated that on the date when the incident took place, at around 7:00 O'clock in the evening when she, her son Pradeep and husband Rajkumar were at home, at that time, certain members of Meena family namely, Kailash, Ramswaroop, Ramprasad, Suresh and Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 20 Rakesh came to their house and started abusing them to which her son Pradeep told them not to quarrel as it is new day and also asked this witness Ranibai and her husband Rajkumar to get into the house and when they got into the house, thereafter, after around half an hour, all the accused persons came back armed with various weapons in a tractor and started pelting stones on their house because of which the cement sheets of the roof got broken and the stones also started falling inside the house. She has alleged that the accused persons climbed on the roof of their house and broke in the house and started assaulting her husband and at that time, her son Pw/7 Pradeep ran away from the house and she also hid inside the house and the accused persons went after her son. She has also stated that these 16 accused persons also assaulted Hariya and Rama who have also died and subsequently she came to know that her brother-in-law Vishnu has also died in the incident and Pradeep has suffered injuries. In her cross-examination, she has been suggested that she has falsely implicated Ramswaroop, Suresh, Kailash, Mukesh due to enmity, to which, she has denied. In para 36 of her cross examination, she has also admitted that she knows all the 16 accused persons by name and by their face also. 19] PW/2 Bablu @ Sandeep Yadav happens to be the son of the deceased Rajkumar Yadav. He is the person who had lodged the Dehati Nalishi and according to him, at around 7:00 O'clock when he was milking the cow, at that time accused Ramswaroop Meena, Ramprasad, Suresh, Kailash, Mukesh, Raju, Babu Gurjar, Rakesh, Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 21 Ravindra Gurjar, Sanjay, Ramesh all were abusing near the house of Raju Meena and as the deceased Rajkumar, the father of this witness was also present there, he told his son Bablu, the complainant to not to talk to such persons, at that time his elder brother Pradeep, his uncle deceased Vishnu Prasad and his wife Subhadrabai also came out of their house and his uncle Vishnu Prasad told Pradeep to go to his house and keep the doors shut and he also told him that he is going to Bheru Porwal's house to call the police. Thereafter, after around half an hour, the accused persons, who are also present in the Court came in a tractor and reached his house. Some of the accused persons climbed over the roof of his house which he was witnessing from his uncle's adjacent house. While the other persons remained near his house and started throwing big stones. At that time, his brother Pradeep also opened the door and ran from the house but at the same time, the accused persons ran after him but as the deceased Hariya also came on the spot, he was also assaulted by Suresh Meena, Mukesh Meena, Kailash, Jamnalal, Rakesh, Babu Gurjar, Ravindra, Sanjay, Shantu Gurjar, Dilip Gurjar, Raju Meena, Gudda @ Bhuralal, Ramswaroop, Ramprasad. Hariya was badly assaulted by these persons who suffered various injuries. Pw/2 has also stated that Jamnalal had assaulted him by throwing Dharia on him which hit him on his left hand's wrist and thus he also ran from the spot, from where he also saw that Pw/8 Mishrilal was also assaulted by Babu Gurjar, Rakesh, Ravindra, Gudda, Jamnalal, Dilip who were having Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 22 Dharia, sword, axe etc. He also saw that at that time his uncle Vishnu Prasad was coming back after telephoning the police but the other accused persons caught him and they started assaulting him. As a result of which he fell on the ground but the accused persons continued to assault him. Hence, this witness also tried to save his uncle by lying over him but he was also beaten by the accused persons. So he again ran away from the spot. According to him, accused persons left the spot after around 10:00 O'clock after their assault and the police got to the spot at around 11:00 O'clock but no report was lodged at that time. The report Ex.P/9 was in fact lodged in the morning of next day only. He also saw his father who was still alive at his house, who was taken by the police personnel as also Rama Bheel who was also alive. There are certain omissions and contradictions in his statement also but the same are minor in nature and in fact this witness has remained unshaken in his cross examination. He has admitted in para 41 of his deposition that a dispute is going on between his father and the accused Ramprasad's family since last more than 10 years in respect of a plot which his father owns, to which, he has admitted. He has also been suggested that the incident was caused by the triables who are engaged in burglary Marpit etc. to which he has denied. He has also denied that he has lodged the complaint after due deliberation in his family. 20] PW/4 Subhadrabai is again an eyewitness and happens to be the wife of deceased Vishnu Prasad, brother of Rajkumar. She has also named all the accused persons including the names of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 23 Ravindra Gurjar and Sanjay Gurjar who were not present in the Court and has stated that these two accused persons are not present in the Court because they are being tried before the Juvenile Court. She has also stated that initially Kailash Meena, Raju Meena, Suresh Meena, Ramswaroop Meena, Ramprasad Meena, Babu Gurjar and his two sons Ravindra and Rakesh were quarrelling with the deceased Rajkumar, her brother-in-law to which her nephew Pradeep told him not to talk to these people and thereafter they went home and his husband Vishnu went to Bheru Porwal's house where who was having a telephone to inform the police. After some time, Kailash came in a tractor along with all the other co-accused persons who were having various weapons in their hands including Dharia, sword, axe, stick etc. and these people also started pelting stones at her brother-in-law's house and after watching it, her servant Hariya and her nephew Sandeep who were at that time in her house, went to his (Sandeep's) house to save his father and at that time, she also saw Pradeep running out from his house and the accused persons were chasing him. According to her, these accused persons also caught Hariya and started assaulting him whereas Sandeep ran from the spot and hid behind a tanker. As this witness was standing outside her house, she also saw that Kailash who was having a stick, assaulted her other servant Shaitan because of which he suffered injuries on his head and hand and when she asked Kailash as to why he is assaulting them, he also ran after her and she got into the house along with her servant Shaitan and closed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 24 door from inside. It is also submitted by her that thereafter, Mukesh Meena, Raju Meena (who have been acquitted by the Trial Court) came to her house and went over the roof and also started breaking kaweloos (roof overhangs) while accused Babu Gurjar was shouting from outside to kill them. After some time, when the accused persons left the spot, she went out and saw that at the railway station which was in-front of their house, her mother-in-law was coming and she was crying and when she enquired from her, she informed that her (PW/4 Subhadrabai's) husband Vishnu has been murdered by these persons and told her that his body is lying at the platform. Around 15 minutes thereafter, her nephew Pradeep also came who was all smeared in blood as he had suffered a head injury. Pradeep told her that when he was trying to save her husband Vishnu, at that time, he suffered an axe injury. Her sister- in-law also come to the railway station and told her that her husband i.e. Rajkumar is also in a serious condition in the house and when they went to her house, she saw that her brother-in-law Rajkumar was lying on the ground and had suffered serious injuries on his head and legs. She also saw stones lying around in their house. In her cross examination in para 16, she has stated that her house is near to the house of accused Ramswaroop and the distance is between the house and Ramswaroop and her brother-in-law Rajkumar's house is only around 2 plots and 1 street. Baring a few minor omissions and contradictions, she has remained unshaken in her entire cross examination.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 2521] PW/6 Nathulal Sharma happens to be the Station Master. He, in his examination-in-chief has stated that while he was at the railway station at the time of incident, he heard the voices coming from the place of incident which was nearby and also heard voices of breaking of Kaweloos, cement sheets from the place of incident. He has also admitted that the residential area is hardly 100 ft. away from the railway station and has also given the clear description of the houses of the accused person Ramswaroop, Ramprasad and the deceased. He has admitted that he had seen the body of Vishnu Prasad lying on the railway station regarding which he had informed the police. This witness PW/6 happens to be an independent witness and although he has not tried to implicate any person in the incident but from his deposition, it is apparent that at the time when the incident took place, the accused persons were breaking the sheets and the kaweloo of the houses of the deceased persons, the noise of which was heard by this witness. 22] PW/7 Pradeep Kumar Yadav happens to be the elder son of the deceased Rajkumar Yadav. He has also named all the accused persons except Sanjay and Ravindra regarding which he has stated that they are being tried in the Juvenile Court. While reiterating the incident and the story of the prosecution, he has also stated that he had seen Jamnalal, Kailash, Suresh and Raju (Suresh and Raju acquitted by trial court) jumping into his house, at that time, he opened the gates and ran away from the spot and thereafter the other accused persons who were already on the roof of his house Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 26 jumped and ran after him. He has also witnessed Hariya and Rama being assaulted by the accused persons as also Mishrilal who had come near the railway platform from somewhere. Jamnalal had assaulted him with a Dharia, Rakesh with an axe and Gudda with an axe whereas Babu with a stick. He has admitted that he does not know as to which accused caused injury with which weapon. He has admitted that prior to the incident, a dispute was going on between the parties in respect of a plot.
23] PW/8 Mishrilal S/o Malaji is again an injured eyewitness. He appears to be an independent witness who was also assaulted by the accused persons only because he wandered of into the area where the incident was taking place. He has stated that he was assaulted by Jamnalal who assaulted him with a Dharia. He has also shown to the Court his leg which had an incised wound. He has also mentioned about the presence of Guda @ Gudda, Rakesh who had also assaulted him. He had also witnessed Vishnu who was running from the spot, was assaulted by the other co-accused persons.
24] PW/9 is Shaitan S/o Nuru @ Nuriya who is 13 years only and he is also an injured eyewitness. According to him, on the date of incident he was present on the spot near the house of deceased Vishnu. He had seen the accused persons climbing up on the house of the deceased Rajkumar and breaking the cement sheets. He has identified Kailash, Babu, Ramswaroop (acquitted by trial court), Ramprasad, Mukesh (acquitted by trial court) to be the persons Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 27 whom he knows and regarding others, he has stated that although he does not know them by their names but they were present on the spot. He has stated that Kailash had assaulted him with a stick which caused injury on his left eye.
25] PW/15 Ramkishore happens to be the father of deceased Rajkumar and Vishnu and had stated that he knows the accused Babu, Ramprasad, Ramswaroop, Suresh, Ramesh (acquitted by the trial court), Dilip, Gudda by face, however, the other accused persons he does not know. According to this witness, he also lives nearby the houses of his sons and had witnessed the incident. 26] PW/16 Praveen Kumar Jain happens to be the Patwari who had prepared the trace map which is proved as Ex.P/28 and P/29. 27] PW/21 is Dr. Pushpendra Sharma who had treated Pw/8 Mishrilal, the injured eyewitness and had taken his x-ray, according to him Mishrilal had a frontal bone fracture on the right side of his head.
28] PW/27 Dr. S.K. Sahu had treated the injured eyewitness Pradeep and had found that he had a 3x1x1 cm incised wound on the front side of his head, on the backside of his head, he had a contusion 5x5 cm caused within 24 hours by hard and sharp ages weapon and hard and blunt weapon respectively. He has also proved the query report Ex.P/86 and P/87 and had stated that the injuries can be caused by the sword which was sent to him. 29] PW/28 Dr. Virendra Singh Chouhan had examined Mishrilal and had found the following injuries on his person:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 28**1- fnukad 3-11-05 dks eSa ftyk fpfdRlky; jryke esa ofj"B fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh ds in ij inLFk FkkA mDr fnukad dks Fkkuk jkoVh ds vkj{kd gqdqeflag dz- 712 vkgr feJhyky firk ekykth mez 45 o"kZ] fu-eyoklh dks ijh{k.k gsrq esjs le{k ysdj vk;k Fkk ijh{k.k djus ij fuEu pksVsa ikbZ Fkh %& 1- ,d dVk gqvk ?kko ftlls jDr cg jgk Fkk diky ds cka;h isjkbVy fgLls ij FkkA 2- dVk gqvk ?kko jDr cg jgk Fkk] 6x4 ls-eh- tka?k ds Åij nkfguhrjQ esa FkkA 2- nksuksa pksVsa l[r ,oa cksFkjh oLrq ls vkbZ izrhr gksrh FkhA eSaus vkgr O;fDr dks iq:"k lthZdy okMZ esa Hkjrh fd;k FkkA mldh gkyr ijh{k.k ds le; lkekU; FkhA feJhyky dk ijh{k.k izfrosnu iz-ih- 89 gS ftlds , ls , Hkkx ih- 89 ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA** 30] The aforesaid injuries have been proved as Ex.P/89. PW/28 Dr. Virendra Singh Chouhan had also examined the injured Pw/3 Sandeep who had suffered a contusion 6x4 cm on his left thigh. The injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object proved as Ex.P/19. He had also examined Pw/9 Shaitan S/o Nuru aged around 12 years who had extreme pain on his right hand and the other injury which he received was a lacerated wound 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the forehead and left temporal region which was bleeding profusely proved as Ex.P/91, P/92 and P/93.
31] PW/29 is P.S. Ranawat, the DSP who is also the Investigating Officer of the case and has proved various documents of seizures and other documents relating to investigation. 32] PW/31 B.S. Bamne is the Inspector who had written the Dehati Nalesh Ex.P/9 which was in his own handwriting and was lodged by Sandeep @ Bablu S/o Rajkumar Yadav.Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 29
33] In the light of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that most of the witnesses have taken the names of most of the accused persons which can be culled out from the depositions of eye witnesses/injured witnesses wherein the presence of all the accused persons is established on the spot. So far as the finding of acquittal of the accused Ramswaroop, Suresh, Raju @ Rajeev, Ramesh and Mukesh is concerned, the learned judge of the trial court has made the following observations regarding to hold that they were not present on the spot:-
"86- izdj.k esa lk{khx.k us lp o >wB dk fu'fpr gh feJ.k rS;kj fd;k gS rFkk bldh 'kq:okr ?kVuk ds rRdky ckn izn'kZ ih&9 dh vne psd ntZ djkus ds lkFk gqbZ gSA fu.kZ; ds pj.k dzekad& 47 esa tks ckydflag okyh o pj.k dzekad& 59 esa vfuyflag okyh U;kf;d uthj dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS mlds vuqlkj Hkwls esa ls vukt fudkyus dk fl)kar viukrs gq, lPpkbZ dk irk yxkuk gksxkA bl fl)kar ds vuqlkj lk{; dk ewY;kadu djus pj fuf'pr gh vkjksih 1- ckcwyky 2- jkds'k 3- fnyhi 4- xqM~Mw mQZ Hkaojyky 5- teukyky 6- 'kkafryky 7- x.ks'k 8- dSyk'k ¼dqy vkB½ vkjksfi;ksa us fuf'pr gh lkekU; mn~ns'; ds vxzlj.k esas ekjihV dh gSA buds fo:) lk{khx.k us fuf'pr gh fo'oluh; lk{; dh gS ftldk foospu iwoZ esa foLr`r :i ls fd;k tk pqdk gS] tSls& v- iw.kZ :is.k Lora= lk{kh feJhyky ¼v-lk- 8½ us vkjksih teukyky] xqM~Mw] jkds'k o ckcw }kjk ekjihV dh fo'oluh; Li"V lk{; nh gSA bu pkj us laca/k ds laca/k esa lk{kh dk dFku iw.kZ :is.k fo'oluh; gS rFkk lansg dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSA c- cky lk{kh 'kSrku ¼v-lk- 9½ us vkjksih dSyk'k ds laca/k esa Li"V lk{; nh gS tks fo'oluh; gSA l- ccyw mQZ lanhi ¼v-lk- 3½ us vkjksih teuqkyky] jkds'k] xqM~Mq] fnyhi] ckcwyky] 'kkafryky] x.ks'k o dSyk'k ds laca/k esa Li"V crk;k gS ftldk foospu iwoZ esa fd;k tk pqdk gSA n- jkuhckbZ ¼v-lk- 1½ us iwjh ?kVuk ugha ns[kh gS ;g ?kj esa Nqi xbZ FkhA ;- lqHknzkckbZ ¼v-lk- 4½ us vkjksih fnyhi] xqM~Mw mQZ Hkaojyky] teukyky] 'kkafryky] x.ks'k o dSyk'k ds fo:) Li"V lk{; nh gSA j- iznhi dqekj ¼v-lk- 7½ us vkjksih ckcwyky] jkds'k] fnyhi] xqM~Mw mQZ Hkoajyky] teukyky] 'kkafryky] x.ks'k o dSyk'k ds fo:) Li"V lk{; nh gSA 87- vkjksih jkeLo:i] lqjs'k] jktw mQZ jktho jes'k o eqds'k ds fo:) Li"V dk vHkko gSA budh mifLFkfr] buds }kjk ekjihV fd;k tkuk o budk lkekU; mn~ns'; Kku lfgr gR;k rd dk gksuk fuf'pr gh rhuksa fcUnq lansgkLin gSaA buds fo:) vLi"V lk{; vkbZ gSA tc Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 30 dSyk'k VªsDVj ls MkcMh 'ks"k vkjksihx.k dks yus x;k Fkk rFkk okil vk;k Fkk rc rd ?kVuk LFky ij >xM+k ugha gqvkA ;fn ;g ikapksa eyoklh esa gksrs rks MkcMh ls 'ks"k vkjksihx.k ds vkus rd ;s fuf'pr gh fookn djrsA tc MkcMh ls 'ks"k vkjksihx.k dks yk;k Fkk mlds ckn mUgksaus gh eq[; :i ls ekjhiV esa Hkkx fy;k gSA ;fn ;g ekusa Hkh fd izkjaHk esa xkyh&xykSp ds le; ;g vkjksihx.k mifLFkr Fks rks Hkh ckn esa tks >xM+k gqvk gS mlds laca/k esa mudk lkekU; mn~ns'; jkg gks ,slk ugha gSA ;g ikapks gR;k tSls xaHkhj vkjksi ds laca/k esa fof/k fo:) teko ds lnL; ugha jgs gSaA tks lkr p{kqn'khZ lk{kh ijhf{kr fd;s x;s gSa muesa ls fdlh us Hkh bu ikapksa esa ls igpku ds vykok fdlh dk Li"V d`R; ugha crk;k gSA dsoy 10&15] 15&16] 16 ;k 20&22 O;fDr ekjus okys Fks ,slh lk{; dh gS tks fd fo'oluh; ugha gSA vr% ;k ikapksa vkjksihx.k vius fo:) yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr gksus ds ik= gSaA bu ikapksa ds laca/k esa tks vkjksihx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us rdZ fd;s gSa os xq.krk;qDr gSa rFkk Lohdkj fd;s tkrs gSaA"
34] Regarding appreciation of evidence in an appeal filed against acquittal, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gorle S. Naidu Vs. State of A.P., (2003) 12 SCC 449 held as under:-
"The respective stands need careful consideration. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 (2) Supreme 567). The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 31 materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622), Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (4) Supreme 167), Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000 (3) Supreme 320), Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152), State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003 (5) Supreme 508 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr. (2003 (7) Supreme 17) and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal."
(emphasis supplied) 35] In the case of State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma reported as (2009) 14 SCC 501 has held as under:-
"23.It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted. This Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,(2007) 4 SCC 415, at page 432 observed as follows :
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 32 accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
(emphasis supplied) 36] In the case of Dheerendra Singh @ Dheeru and another vs. State of M.P. reported as 2019 (3) M.P.L.J. (Cri) 676 has held as under:-
"50. Similarly, in 2013 (4) SCC 607 (Subal Ghorai Vs. State of W.B.), it was held that where several witnesses have been examined, there are bound to be minor discrepancies in their evidence. Such discrepancies are natural. The prosecution story cannot be rejected on that ground. [See: also 1999 (9) SCC 525 (Leelaram Vs. State of Haryana and anr.), 1999 (8) SCC 649 (Rammi Vs. State of M.P.) and 2012 (7) SCC 646 (Shyamal Ghose Vs. State of W.B.)]. In Subal Ghorai's case (supra), it was further held as under :
"In any case, the omissions are minor omissions pertaining to non-mentioning of weapons carried by the accused or not referring to the parts of the bodies of the deceased on which the assault was made. Some of the witnesses have omitted to mention the names of some of the accused. But, in our opinion, on the substratum of the prosecution story, there are no omissions or contradictions. While analysing the evidence, we have kept in mind the manner in which several accused persons armed with weapons attacked the deceased. In an attack of this type, in the nature of things, there are bound to be some omissions or discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. Experience shows that witnesses do exaggerate and this Court has taken note of such exaggeration made by the witnesses and held that on account of embellishments, evidence of witnesses need not be discarded if it is corroborated on material aspects by the other evidence on record.
12. It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment--sometimes there could even be a deliberate Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 33 attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same."
(Emphasis supplied)
51. In a recent judgment reported in AIR 2018 SC 4011 (Menoka Malik and others Vs. State of W.B. and others), the Apex Court again held that in a case involving large number of offenders, the evidence of only two or three witnesses who gave a consistent account of the incident is sufficient to sustain conviction. This judgment is based on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 (Masalti Vs. State of U.P.)."
(emphasis supplied) 37] In the light of the aforesaid enunciations of the Supreme Court when we test the finding recorded by the learned judge of the trial court that the acquitted accused persons/respondents viz., Ramswaroop, Suresh, Raju @ Rajeev, Ramesh, and Mukesh in Cr.A.No.1154/2009 were not present on the spot when the incident took place, we find the same to perverse and appears to have been arrived at only on conjecture that had they been present at Village Malvasi after the initial quarrel, they would certainly have continued to quarrel with the complaint's side till the other accused persons arrived on the spot from village Dabdi. In fact this theory of the trial court stands demolished in the light of the evidence in the form of eye witness and injured witnesses, adduced by the prosecution and specific overt acts of some of the acquitted accused persons as have been pointed out by this court in the preceding paras. It is also found that the acquitted accused persons have not Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 34 even set up a plea in their defence u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. that they had left the spot after the initial quarrel took place between the parties. Thus, court finds that it is not a case where two views are possible so far as the involvement of the acquitted accused persons is concerned. Merely because the acquitted accused persons were also involved in the prologue to the main incident; it gives no presumption at all in their favour that they cannot be expected to wait for the other accused persons to arrive at the scene of occurrence, specially, when the evidence contrary to this theory is also available on record.
38] This court is of the considered opinion that given the circumstances of the case in which the 4 lives were erased and other persons were also injured in a brutal rampage by a group of men, it is not possible for the prosecution witnesses to give minute details of the overt act of each and every one of the accused persons. The injuries suffered by the deceased and the injured persons were numerous in numbers and grievous in numbers and thus, it cannot be said to be a handy job of a few persons only but a group of men, and since all the accused persons have been named by one or the other witnesses, most of whom are injured, their testimonies cannot be thrown overboard when the same is also corroborated by, not only the eye witness account but also the medical evidence. 39] It is also found that so far as the FSL report is concerned, Ex.P/118 is the covering letter for the to the Forensic laboratory giving details of the arms seized from the accused persons, Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 35 Ex.P/119 is the FSL report which provides the result of the testing of the arms seized from the accused persons including the acquitted accused persons Ramswaroop, Suresh, Raju @ Rajeev, Ramesh but no FSL is available of the sword seized from accused Mukesh.
40] In the FSL report Ex.P/119, interalia, blood has been found on articles J,K,O,W, which have been recovered from the appellants as also from the acquitted accused persons except Mukesh, however, the results are inconclusive. It is true that the results of the FSL report are inconclusive, but still that cannot be discarded on this ground only as has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 :-
"18. PW 1, PW 6 and PW 12 had substantially supported the case of the prosecution and we are unable to notice any substantial conflict or contradiction in their statements. The semen, blood and bloodstained clothes, which had been seized during the investigation, had been sent for examination. The report of the FSL had been placed on record as Ext. P-23. Such evidence would be admissible in terms of Section 293 CrPC.
19. The merit or otherwise of this report was examined by the High Court as follows:
"(8) During trial, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, Ext. P-23 dated 31-7-2007 was produced and admitted in evidence under Section 293 of the Code by which the presence of blood on Articles A, B, C, D, E, F1, F2 and presence of seminal stains and human spermatozoa on Articles C, D, E, F1, F2, G1, H1, I1, J1 and K1 was confirmed. Seminal stains and human spermatozoa was not found on Articles A and B. The seminal stains on Articles C, D, E, F1 and F2 were not sufficient for serological examination. The slides Articles G2, H2, I2, J2 and K2 were preserved if DNA test was felt necessary. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The appellant-
accused examined Samelal, DW 1 and Kamla, DW 2, wife of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 36 Ranjeet to establish that the appellant-accused had slept in their respective houses between 9 to 10 p.m. on 9-8-2006."
20. As is evident from the above findings, the report of the FSL was inconclusive but not negative, which would (sic not) provide the accused with any material benefit."
(emphasis supplied) 41] When tested on the anvil of the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court, the facts of the case at hand also reveal the similar situation where although the blood has been found on the weapons seized from the accused persons but the report is inconclusive which would not provide the accused persons with any material benefit. Although there is no FSL report regarding the sword seized from Mukesh, but his presence on the spot cannot be denied as already discussed above. So far as the offence under Section 3(2) (5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence available on record that the incident took place because of the caste of the deceased person as the dispute was with respect to land only. 42] In the result, this court is not inclined to allow the present criminal appeals No.634/2009 and 699/2009 as having without merits, and the same are hereby dismissed. So far as Cr.A. No.1154/2009 (State of M.P. vs. Ramswaroop and others) is concerned, on the aforementioned discussion, it stands allowed and the respondents viz., Ramswaroop, Suresh, Raju @ Rajeev, Ramesh, and Mukesh are hereby convicted under Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 of IPC and are hereby sentenced to life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs.1000/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI Signing time: 29-09-2022 14:42:37 37each, in default of payment of fine they are further directed to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.
43] Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No.634/2009 and Criminal Appeal No.699/2009 are hereby dismissed whereas Criminal Appeal No.1154/2009 is hereby allowed and the respondent No.1 Ramswaroop, No.2 Suresh, No.3 Raju @ Rajeev, No.11 Ramesh, and No.13 Mukesh in Cr.A. No.1154/2009 are convicted under Section 302/149, 148, 449, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 of IPC, hence they are directed to surrender before the trial court within one month's time from today, failing which their bail bonds shall be forfeited and they shall be arrested and made to suffer the rest of the prison sentence.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
krjoshi
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2022.09.29 14:44:00 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Signing time: 29-09-2022
14:42:37