The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence, including witness testimony and dying declarations, in criminal cases. The judgment also emphasizes the need for thorough and professional investigation to ensure justice.

JUDGMENT SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, J. : – Regard being had to the similitude of the FIR and factual foundation, these appeals filed on behalf of the appellants were analogously heard and decided by this common order. These appeals have been filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 23-7-2008 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ujjain in Special S.T. No. 261/2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 148, 302/149 (three counts) of IPC and sentenced to two years of R.I. with Rs. 1,000/- fine with default stipulation of six months of R.I. under section 148 of IPC for each count and with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulations of six months of R.I. under section 302/149 IPC for each count.

2. The prosecution story succinctly speaking is that prior to the incident dated 11-7-2005, there was a report filed by both the parties (the appellants and the deceased) against each other on 8-7-2005. The appellants had lodged the report against the deceased for committing theft of their buffaloes and the deceased had lodged the report alleging assault upon them by the appellant for alleged stolen of their buffaloes. After lodging the FIR on 8-7-2005, the appellants had thrown stones at the house of complainant (deceased) in the mid-night between 10-11-7-2005. Due to this incident, deceased Ramchandra along with his mother Nanibai set out for the police station for lodging report in the morning of 11-7-2005 at about 7:30 to 8:00 AM. On the way, they were surrounded by the appellants who were wielding weapons such as Dhariya, swords and sticks and they started abusing the deceased threatening him and they started assaulting him with these weapons. The father of Ramchandra, Kachru, when came to intervene, he was also assaulted by the appellants. The appellants, thereafter, dragged Bhagirath (brother of the deceased Ramchandra) from his house and assaulted him, they brought him up to “Bada” of Jaswant Singh where, he died. Gattabai, wife of Ramchandra and other villages arrived at the spot but the appellants threatened that anyone intervening would be killed as well. Kachru and Bhagirath succumbed to their injuries on the spot. Telephonic intimation was sent to the Police Station – Mahidpur Road. The SHO of Police Station Mahidpur Road, Prahalad Singh Tomar (PW.18) arrived on the spot and he found Ramchandra to be still alive. He recorded the Dehati Nalichi Ex.P/7 on the basis of statements made by Ramchandra and then recorded the dying declaration Ex.P/10 on the spot. Ramchandra was sent to PHC, Mahidpur Road, but succumbed on the way to hospital. Prahalad Singh Tomar (PW.18), drew Safeena form and Naksha Panchyatnama of the bodies of Kachru and Bhagirath and their bodies were sent to the Civil Hospital for conducting post-mortem. The Safina form of deceased Ramchandra was drawn in Mahidpur Civil Hospital, his postmortem was also got conducted. On the basis of Dehati Nalichi, FIR was lodged, investigation was initiated, spot map Ex.P/57 was drawn, the Patwari drew another map, blood stained soil and plain soil were seized, the shoes of Ramchandra and Bhagirath were seized from the spot, some stones were also seized near the spot, blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized and memo of appellants were recorded from Ex.P/32 to Ex.P/38, sword was seized from Sohan Singh, Dhariya (sharp edge weapon) was seized from appellant Roopsingh and from rest of the appellants, sticks were seized. These seizure memos are Ex.P/37 to Ex.P/38. The seized items were sent to FSL from where the report was obtained. After recording the statements of the witnesses and rest of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC who committed the matter to the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act.

3. Learned Special Judge has framed charges under section 148 and 302 of IPC and in alternate 302/149 and 506 of IPC and under sections 3, 2 and 5 of SC/ST (P.A.) Act. The appellants abjured their guilt a