Judgement

MITTER, J. :- Accepting the appeal of the State from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul acquitting all the thirteen accused before him in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1965, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh convicted the appellant before us under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. According to the Sessions Judge, the prosecution had not produced any witness who could be relied on but the High Court took a different view and held that although three of the eye witnesses, namely, Gopal Singh (P. W. 1). Gurnam Singh (P. W. 3) and Motisingh (P. W. 4) might be termed interested witnesses whose evidence had to be viewed with caution, there were at least two police witnesses, sub-Inspector, Shyamrao (P. W. 7) and constable Laxmanrao (P. W. 6) who could not be placed in the same category and whose testimony could be relied on as corroborating that of interested witnesses in convicting Sadaram.

2. The relevant facts about which there can be no dispute are as follows. The appellant had once been in the employment of Gopalsingh, P. W. 1 and used to assist him in running his liquor shop. Subsequently he started running a liquor shop on his own in an adjoining village to that of Gopalsingh s and became a serious competitor of his in business. Rivalry led to enmity to such an extent that Gopalsingh had to engage a number of persons known as Pahalwans to act as his body guard. Some of these were Gurnam Singh, Thansingh, Motisingh and the deceased Mathura Pahalwan. There were criminal proceedings against both the parties : as a result of the frequent troubles a special police guard was posted at Amla police station on August 13, 1965 which was the Bhujlia day. Apparently people in that locality are in the habit of going out in procession to perform some ceremonies on that day. Gopalsingh had invited people to his residence to attend the function at his place. After the Pooja had been performed and the Bhujlia procession had left Gopal Singh s house, Mathura Pahalwan who had stepped down on to the road from the platform outside the house was injured by a spear which pierced his chest. The impact was so great that Mathura was unable to speak and almost immediately afterwards became unconscious. He died within a short time thereafter between 6.30 ad 7.00 p.m. without regaining consciousness.

3. The prosecution case was that a conspiracy had been hatched by Sadaram and his associates who were put on the sessions trial to murder Gopalsingh and some of his body guards. At about 6.30 p.m. when Gopalsingh was performing the pooja in connection with the function, Sadaram and his group came to the scene, some of them being armed with weapons, like spears, farshas and axes while others had provided themselves with lathis. Stones were thrown towards Gopalsingh s house from a close by lane which lay in the direction of Sadaram s house. Mathuradas Pahalwan went forward to investigate the source of the trouble but no sooner than he had set his foot on the road the appellant Sadaram emerged on the scene with a spear in his hand followed by the accused. Mishrilal armed with a farsha and Sadaram gave a spear thrust on the chest of Mathura. Sadaram also cried out that Gopalsingh and Thansingh should not be allowed to escape but left the spot soon after. Gopalsingh immediately rushed to the police station and lodged a first information report. The doctor who was summoned to attend on Mathura could render no aid. The Station House Officer came to the spot and started investigation as a result of the report already lodged.

4. The Sessions Judge found himself unable to accept the story of stone-throwing as there were no marks on the doors and walls of Gopalsingh s house and also because this was not supported by at least one independent witness, Ramprasad (D.W. 4). He found himself unable to accept the story that in spite of a large number of stones having been thrown no one was hit. He also f