Gyasiram
& Anr Vs. State of M.P [2003] Insc 2 (6 January 2003)
R.C.
Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar. R.C. Lahoti, J.
Gyasiram,
the accused __ appellant No.1, has been held guilty of an offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC. Angad, accused __ appellant No.2, has been held guilty
of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the
appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The
incident took place on 9th
August, 1991 between
2.30 and 3 p.m. in village Guthina, P.S. Maharajpura,
Gwalior. There are party factions in the
village consisting of two communities. On the date of the incident, the persons
belonging to the community of the accused were sitting on the pathway in wait
for the deceased. Both the accused persons were armed with fire arms. When the
deceased and his companions passed by their side they followed them. Then they
opened fire. There was an indiscriminate firing made by the accused persons and
their other companions who have been acquitted. So far as Gyasiram, accused-appellant,
is concerned, the finding arrived at by the Session Court and upheld by the
High Court is that when the deceased Kalyan Singh had fallen down injured and
lay prostate on the earth, Gyasiram placed his gun on the buttocks of the
deceased and fired which fatally injured the deceased and resulted in his
death.
There
is overwhelming evidence consisting of eye-witness account of the incident
given by Megh Singh, PW-3, Shiv Narayan, PW-4 and Mehtab Singh, PW-9. Out of
these three witnesses, Shiv Narayan and Mehtab Singh have themselves suffered
injuries and were medically examined. There was yet another eye witness Damodar,
PW-1, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The learned
Session Judge has minutely scrutinized the testimony of the eye witnesses in
the background of the fact that party factions existed in the village and the
prosecution witnesses and the accused persons belonged to opposite groups.
However, having cautiously examined the testimony of the eye witnesses, the
trial Court has found Megh Singh, Shiv Narayan and Mehtab Singh (respectively
PW-3, 4 and 9) to be the witnesses of truth. Their presence at the place of the
incident is not doubted and cannot be doubted. The factum of indiscriminate
firing done by the accused persons finds corroboration from several bullets
recovered from the place of the incident, some of them found embedded in the
trees standing at the site of the incident. Since it was a case of rioting, to
the extent to which the trial Court found any doubt as to the participation of
the accused persons, they have been acquitted. So far as the two
accused-appellants are concerned, it has been positively found that Gyasiram,
appellant, placed his gun on the buttocks of the deceased, who was lying prostate
on the earth having sustained injuries, and fired the gun resulting into a
fatal injury. So far as the appellant Angad is concerned, it has been found by
the Session Court that he too was sitting with accused Gyasiram, both armed
with guns awaiting the arrival of the deceased and his companions. Both of them
followed the deceased. Angad appellant had also indulged in firing and he had
also fired aiming at the deceased. Thus, the participation of appellant Angad
in the incident and his sharing common intention with co-accused Gyasiram to
commit the murder of the deceased has been established beyond any shadow of
reasonable doubt. The participation of the two accused persons finds
corroboration from the FIR which was lodged within one and a half hours of the
incident at the Police Station situated at a distance of about 9 kms. from the
place of the incident. There was no possibility of any embellishment. The
medical evidence fully supports the role assigned by the eye witnesses to the
accused persons in the incident.
The
accused __ appellants had taken the plea of having acted in exercise of right
of private defence which plea has been discarded by the Session Court as also
by the High Court assigning valid reasons.
We do
not find the verdict of guilty recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the
High Court liable to be interfered with.
The
appeal is held devoid of any merit. It is dismissed. The conviction of the two
accused-appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High
Court, is maintained.
Back