J U D G M E N T

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred by four accused/convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in a case concerning the murder of one Balkishan.

Signature

2. Not. Verified Criminal Appeals Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011 have been preferred DGD1R7 iae Eg :ta0Eiet s1 aT:o : l2Al 2n y05 : As2 I iH6S g.nUT0e3JdA.1 b1y by accused Dablu (A-1), accused Kamlesh (A-2) and accused Pratap @ Pratap Narayan (A-5), whereas Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012 has been preferred by accused Vinod @Ajay (A-4).

3. Out of the six accused persons, one Govind Singh (A-3) had died earlier and the main accused Vikram remains absconding.

4. All the aforesaid appellants were convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and for life along with fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code¹Hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” respectively. They were acquitted of the charges under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The aforesaid conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.11.2010 whereby the appeals preferred by the appellants were dismissed.

5. The incident is of 03.06.2000. On the said date, at about 8:15 am, the deceased Balkishan who was the Chairman of Watershed Committee was sitting at the Tihuli bus stand waiting to travel to attend the Watershed Committee meeting. At that time, all the six accused persons alighted from a bus armed with firearms. Vikram was alleged to be in possession of a mouser; Govind Singh (now deceased) with a double barrel 12- bore gun; Vinod @ Ajay with a single barrel 12-bore gun; and the other three with country made pistols (kattas). It is alleged that Vikram fired the first shot from behind a standing tractor- trolley, which hit the deceased on his left hand. On being hit, the deceased ran towards the village to save his life. He was chased by all the accused persons who kept on firing continuously. The deceased entered the house of one Rattan Lal (PW-6). The accused persons followed him inside the house, dragged him to the courtyard, and shot him at the temple at point-blank range. The deceased died instantly. The accused persons then ran away towards the jungle.

6. The First Information Report (Exh. P-3) was lodged on the same day i.e. 03.06.2000 at 9:30 am at Police Station Uteela by Budha Ram (PW-2), brother of the deceased against all the aforesaid six accused persons.

7. The crime so committed was investigated and two chargesheets (main and supplementary) were filed against the five accused persons except the main accused Vikram, who was absconding. Accordingly, two separate cases, Special Case No. 12 of 2001 and Special Case No. 1 of 2002 came to be registered, which were later merged for trial and the lead case happened to be Special Case No. 12 of 2001.

8. We have heard Shri S. Mahendran, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011 and Shri Prafulla Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012. Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit, learned counsel had appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh and argued the matter in defence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the alleged offence is said to have been committed in two parts. The first part relates to the incident of firing at the bus stand where the first shot was allegedly fired at the deceased and the second part relates to the incident of firing at the house of Rattan Lal (PW-6), where the deceased was chased and fired upon. It is contended that there is no reliable eye-witness to the second incident. The only independent witness, Rattan Lal (PW-6), did not see the accused appellants firing at the deceased and stated that he had not seen the accused persons, except the main accused Vikram, inside his house or feeling from there and had only heard the firearm shots. It is further argued that the prosecution witnesses are closely