The testimony of injured witnesses is accorded special credibility, and claims of provocation must demonstrate a loss of self-control, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

Per: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 6-9-1997 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T. No.92 of 1996, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:

All sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 5-3-1996, the complainant Suraj Kumar lodged an FIR that he is the resident of village Sarekha where he lives along with his mother, father and brother. His uncle Gajanand and his sons Rajendra and Surendra reside in front of their house. About 2 years back, Surendra had abused his Bua, thereafter both the families were not on talking terms. It was about 4 P.M. his mother Sevanti Bai, Bua Parvatibai, father Bhajanlal and elder brother Sewak were in the house. At that time, the appellants started abusing Sewak. When Sewak came out of the house and objected to it, then Rajendra took out a knife from his pocket and Surendra was having lathi in his hand. They both started assaulting Sewak. Rajendra gave a knife blow on the chest and back of Sewak, whereas Surendra assaulted him by lathi. When his father Bhajanlal and complainant tried to save Sewak, then Rajendra assaulted him in abdominal region and back, whereas Surendra gave a lathi blow on the head of Bhajanalal. Sewak fell down and on account of injuries, he died on the spot. Accordingly, it was alleged that Rajendra and Surendra have caused injuries to the complainant and his father which are dangerous to life and have killed Sewak. The incident was witnessed by his mother Sewantibai, Bua Parvatibai, neighbor Netram and other residents of colony.

3. Accordingly, the police registered the F.I.R. for offence under Sections 307, 302/34 of IPC. The complainant and Bhajanlal were got medically examined and the dead body of Sewak was sent for post mortem. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet for offence under Sections 307, 302/34 of IPC.

4. The Trial Court by order dated 25-6-1996, framed charges under Section 302 or in the alternative 302/34, 307/34, 323 of IPC against Surendra and under Section 302 or in the alternative 302/34, 307 or in the alternative 307/34, 323/34 of IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act.

5. The Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. The Prosecution examined Suraj Kumar (P.W.1), Bhajanlal (P.W.2), Parwatibai (P.W.3), S.R. Ghoghare (P.W.4), Ashok Kumar (P.W.5), Netram (P.W.6), Dr. K. Prasad (P.W.7), Sunderlal (P.W.8), Dr. Ashok Lilhare (P.W.9), Dr. K.K. Khosla (P.W.10), Ashok (P.W.11) and G.P. Mishra (P.W.12).

7. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

8. The Trial Court by impugned judgment and sentence convicted and sentenced the appellants for the above mentioned offences.

9. Challenging the Judgment and Sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by Counsel for the Appellants that the incident took place out of sudden and grave provocation. Even if the entire incident is accepted, still it would be an offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC. Even otherwise, injuries were also found on the body of Rajendra which have not been explained, therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has suppressed the very genesis of the incident.

10. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently oppose