Mahipal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J.—The aforesaid three appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16th May, 2001 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 273/99 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (M.P.). Since the judgment and order challenged in these criminal appeals is one, they are taken up together for hearing and disposal by this one common judgment. The appellants herein stood their trial on the charges levelled against them before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and they were convicted and sentenced as following:-

(a) for the offence punishable u/s 302 or in alternative u/s 302/34 of I.P.C., all the three appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for causing murder of Rakshpal Singh with payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of which to suffer six-six months'' rigorous imprisonment.

(b) for the offence punishable under Sections 25(IB)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, accused Mahadev Singh was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonments of two and four years, respectively with payment of fine of Rs. 500-500 each, in default of payment of which to suffer one-one month''s additional rigorous imprisonment;

However, by the same judgment, accused Ajent Singh was acquitted of all the charges framed for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 or in alternative u/s 302/34, 324/34 and 294 of I.P.C. At the same time, having found no case made out against the present accused-appellants for commission of offence u/s 324/34 of I.P.C., they were acquitted of the said charge by the trial court. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed against the accused Mahadev Singh was directed to run concurrently with the life imprisonment.

Briefly narrated the prosecution case is that on 22nd April 1999 at about 4.00 p.m., in the evening, there were some hot talks took place in between the complainant-party and accused Mahadev. Thereafter, on the same day at about 6-15 p.m., in the evening complainant Ganga Vishan, Deewan Singh and Naval Singh were carrying Rakshpal who complained of abdominal pain to the Hospital. When they reached near vegetable market, all the four accused, namely, Mahadev, Ajent, Mahipal and Raghunandan reached there and abused them by bad words. Ganga Vishan, complainant when restrained the accused from uttering such abuses to them, it is alleged that accused Raghunandan by pelting stone caused injury on the head of Ganga Vishan. Thereafter on provocation by another accused Ajent Singh, accused Mahadev Singh fired from a Katta and caused first injury on the body of Rakshpal Singh. On another provocation made by accused Mahipal, accused Mahadev Singh fired second shot and caused injury on the body of Rakshpal Singh. Resultantly, injured Rakshpal fell down. At this moment, accused Ajent gave a blow with a Gupti to Rakshpal causing injury on his right side of the abdomen. It is further alleged that when Rakshpal was lying, accused Mahadev and Raghunandan caused injuries to him with knives. Rakshpal died on the spot. All the accused after incident fled away. Ganga Vishan left the spot for lodging FIR at police station. The FIR was lodged by him at about 6.35 p.m. Marg Report was also written on the report of complainant and was inquired into. The investigation was set in motion immediately after recording the FIR. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court having jurisdiction. On committal, the Sessions trial commenced and after recording the evidence, the present accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for commission of the alleged offences. On being aggrieved, the appellants presented the appeals before this court.

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is against the peculiar facts, evidence of the case and the law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the statements of the eye-witnesses to the effect that all accused reached on the spot with accused Mahadev Singh who was having two firearms in his hand prior to the incident and on provocation by other accused, he fired by two pistols and then the other accused inflicted injuries by knives are not at all worthy of credence. Further, the prosecution examined only highly interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined to prove the guilt against the accused-appellants. Apart from the above, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of eye-witnesses and therefore their evidence is not reliable. On the basis of above arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the appeals, the accused may be acquitted of the charges.

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that there is no illegality or perversity committed in recording the findings by the learned trial court. Hence, it is prayed that the appeals may be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

To prove the charges for commission of offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. Eye-witness Ganga Vishan (PW-4) is the complainant and injured in this case. He deposed that deceased Rakshpal Singh was his nephew. On 22nd April 1999 at about 6-15 p.m., in the evening, he and his nephew Rakshpal Singh were going for treatment of stomach pain suffered by Rakshpal Singh to the hospital of Dr. Hari Verma. As they reached near vegetable market, all four accused reached there and asked as to why they quarrelled with Mahadev. The complainant repudiated the allegation of quarrelling with Mahadev. Thereafter accused Raghunandan caused injury on his head by pelting stone. On provocation by accused Ajent, accused Mahadev with an intention to cause death fired by his country made pistol, however, the shot did not hit any person. Thereafter on provocation by another accused Mahipal, accused Mahadev again fired by his county made pistol which caused injury on the back of Rakshpal Singh. Accused Ajent following the injured inflicted a blow on the left side of abdomen of Rakshpal by means of a Gupti (Big knife). Rakshpal fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused Mahipal and Raghunandan caused 4-5 injuries by knives towards the left ribs and chest of Rakshpal who was lying on the ground. Rakshpal died on the spot. Then all accused fled away. During the process of running away, accused Mahadev left his one pistol on the spot while carried another pistol with him. Leaving Deevan Singh and Naval Singh on the spot with the dead body of Rakshpal Singh, the complainant left the place for lodging the report at police station Ambah (Morena). The complainant Ganga Vishan (PW-4) has admitted in his evidence that there was an enmity between the parties on account of causing death of Angad Singh, father of accused Mahadev and Raghunandan by the complainant party and for causing injuries to Shripati, brother of complainant by accused party besides election rivalry amongst them. In cross-examination of the witness, there appear several contradictions pointed out in the FIR and case diary statement of the witness on the points such as (i) accused Mahadev was keeping two pistols on the spot and he fired two shots from two different pistols (ii) he left one pistol on the spot and another was carried away by him from the spot. (iii) accused Ajent Singh was having Gupti whereas another accused Raghunandan and Mahipal were having knives by which they caused injuries on the person of Rakshpal Singh.

Deewan Singh (PW-5) in his deposition well supported the version of incident as narrated by Ganga Vishan (PW-4), the complainant. He deposed that on 22nd April, 1999 at about 6.15 p.m., in the evening, he Ganga Vishan, Naval Singh and Rakshpal were going for treatment of abdominal pain suffered by Rakshpal to the hospital of Dr. Hari Verma. All accused met them nearby vegetable market at Ambah Town and on previous quarrelling with accused Mahadev Singh, the accused hurled abuses to them. Then, accused Raghunandan by pelting stone caused injury on the head of Ganga Vishan. Thereafter on provocation of accused Ajent and Mahipal, accused Mahadev fired twice by his country made pistols and caused injury on the back of Rakshpal. Accused Raghunandan and Mahipal inflicted knife blows causing injuries to Rakshpal who was lying on the ground. Consequently the injured died on the spot. After incident, all accused fled away from the spot. The complainant Ganga Vishan then went to Police Station Ambah for lodging the FIR of the incident against accused. Police reached on the spot on the day of incident at about 7 p.m. and prepared memo of dead body (Ex. P/8), spot map (Ex. D/2), seizure memo of simple and blood stained soil from the spot (Ex. P/6), seizure memo of the country made pistol with one fired cartridge vide Ex. P/7. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the murder trial of Angad Singh, who was father of accused Mahadev as well as Raghunandan and brother of accused accused Ajent was pending against him in the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge Morena and another Sessions Case for causing gunshot injury to Shripati, his brother was pending against accused Ajent Singh and Angad Singh. Thus, there was admittedly previous enmity between the complainant party and the accused.

Naval Singh (PW-6) in his deposition fully supported the versions of Ganga Vishan (PW-4) and Deewan Singh (PW-5). In his cross examination he also like other witnesses admitted the enmity with accused on previous incident of murder of Angad Singh, father of accused by them and on incident of gunshot injuries to Shripati, his brother by accused party prior to the present incident.

R.S. Kushwah (PW-10) deposed that on 22nd April 1999 he was posted as Sub Inspector-cum-In charge of the Police Station Ambah. On that day, he wrote the F.I.R. (Ex. P/5) on an oral report of the incident by the complainant at Crime No. 118/1999. On the basis of that oral report, he recorded Marg Report at No. 16/1999 vide Ex. P/15. After lodging the F.I.R., he proceeded to the spot and started with investigation. On the spot he issued notices vide Ex. P/16 and called the witnesses for preparing memo of dead-body and thereafter prepared the memo of dead body (Ex. P/8) in presence of the witnesses. He prepared spot map in the presence and under information to the complainant. He also prepared seizure memo of simple and blood stained soil from the spot vide Ex. P/6 including seizure of the country made pistol with one fired cartridge vide Ex. P/7. He sent dead body of Rakshpal through a constable No. 1007, namely, Kaptan Singh to the Hospital Ambah. During investigation, on the day of incident, he recorded the case-diary statements of complainant Ganga Vishan, Naval Singh and Deevan Singh, the eye-witnesses to the incident. On 5th July 1999, he arrested accused Raghunandan Singh vide arrest memo (Ex. P/17) and on 10th August 1999 he arrested accused Ajent Singh formally from Sub Jail and prepared his formal arrest memo vide Ex. P/18. During investigation, he sent all the incriminating articles seized from the spot including country-made pistol marked as Article-A/1 and empty cartridge marked as Article-P/1 for their chemical examination and firearm expert examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that after recording the F.I.R. (Ex. P/5), he directed Head Constable for making an entry in the Daily diary register kept in the Police Station. After making an entry in the Daily diary register (Roznamcha) the entry number was entered into the F.I.R. He also admitted that one digit middle number of entry number is altered so it is not clear. He also admitted that the copy of F.I.R. was sent to the concerning Magistrate on the same day by Dispatch No. 886/1999 but due to night and since the court''s hours were over it was delivered by the next day in the working hours. In cross-examination, he stated that during investigation at the time of preparing memos on the spot, he invited the neighbouring persons to attend investigation proceedings but no one reached the spot. He, however, admitted that the statements of neighbouring persons, namely, Hariom and Anand were recorded but denied that they were the witnesses of the incident. He admitted that after writing F.I.R. he did not sent the injured complainant Ganga Vishan for his medical examination to the Civil Hospital Ambah. He also admitted that the complainant Ganga Vishan did not inform that accused Ajent Singh having Gupti and other accused Raghunandan and Mahipal caused injuries on body of deceased Rakshpal by their respective knives. He admitted that he did not mention about the said injuries caused by the weapons in the application (Ex. P/1) for postmortem examination of the dead-body despite having much knowledge. Likewise according to him, the complainant did not orally report that accused Mahadev was having two country made pistols with him on the spot and he used both the pistols for firing at Rakshpal. The witness also denied to have informed him by the complainant that one pistol was left by accused Mahadev on the spot and another pistol was taken back by the accused Mahadev while running away. Apparently, therefore, the witness failed to mention these particular facts at the time of recording the F.I.R.

Ramanand Sharma (PW-11) In-charge of the Police Station Ambah deposed that on 28th April 1999 during part investigation, he arrested accused Mahipal by arrest memo (Ex. P/19). Under custody and on information by accused Mahipal regarding the weapon knife and blood stained clothes, he prepared the memorandum (Ex. P/9) and thereafter from his residence at Ambah, the accused Mahipal produced the weapon knife which was seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/10). On 24th May 1999 he arrested accused Mahadev by arrest memo (Ex. P/20). The statement of this witness is supported by Santosh Singh (PW-7), the witness of memorandum (Ex. P/9) and seizure memo (Ex. P/10).

Mahaveer Prasad Shukla (PW-8) posted as Arms Clerk in the office of the District Magistrate Morena deposed that on 12th July 1999, being Arms Clerk, he received the case diary of Crime No. 118/1999 alongwith memo from the District Superintendent of Police and firearm (country made pistol) with one fired cartridge in a sealed form which was produced before Shri Pramod Agrawal, the then District Magistrate. The District Magistrate after perusal of the case diary and firearm accorded the sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of accused Mahadev under Sections 25(IB)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-1) deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as an Assistant Surgeon in the Civil Hospital Ambah. On 23rd April 1999 at about 8-05 a.m., he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rakshapal Singh, son of Durga Singh, resident of Midela, which was received from the Police station Ambah. During examination, he found the following injuries:-

(i) Incised wound of size 4 cm. x 2 cm. x 5 cm. on the left side of chest at mid axillary line obliquely vertical 6th inter-coastal space directed upward medially;

(ii) Incised wound of size 2.5 cm. x 2 cm. x 3 cm. on the left side of chest 1.5 cm. below injury no. (i) directed upward medially oblique vertical;

(iii) Incised wound of size 5 cm. x 2 cm. x 3.5 cm. on left side of chest 1 cm. below injury no. (ii) directed upward medially oblique vertical;

(iv) Incised wound of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 4 cm. on the left side of chest just above the left coastal margin upward medially oblique vertical.

(v) Incised wound of size 4.5 cm. x 2 cm. x 3.5 cm. on left renal area medially oblique vertical;

(vi) Incised wound of size 4.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. x 3 cm. on the right side of abdomen just below right coastal margin oblique vertical;

(vii) Firearm wound of size 2.5 cm. x 2.3 cm. in oval on the left side back 4 cm. above the surface of left scapula medially directed downward medially towards right side. All injuries are antemortem in nature

On dissection of the body, it appeared that 7th rib of left side was cut and 6th rib on right side was fractured. Right lung was torn and blackish in colour. There was a cut injury of size 4 cm. x 1 cm. on lever apart from three cut injuries of size, namely, (i) 3 cm. x 1 cm. (ii) 2 cm. x 1 cm. (iii) 4 cm. x 1 cm. on spleen. Lower end of kidney was cut. The metallic part of bullet was placed in between 6th and 7th ribs which was removed and after sealing was handed over to the concerned police constable for its examination.

The doctor opined that cause of death of deceased was shock due to excessive bleeding from multiple injuries over spleen, left kidney, lever due to incised wounds and fractures of right and left lung by firearm injury. Mode of death was homicidal. As per the doctor, all injuries on vital parts were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. Duration of death was 12-24 hours from the time of postmortem. The postmortem report is (Ex. P/1) written and signed by him. In cross-examination, the doctor deposed that all incised wounds can be inflicted by one sharp edged weapon like knife since he noted at the time of examination of the dead-body that the width of all incised wounds was almost similar being 2 cm. each. So, he specifically said that an incised wound can be caused by means of one knife.

On perusal of the report (Ex. P/11) it reveals that during examination of the weapon, the Senior Scientific Officer posted in the State Forensic Science Laboratory Sagar opined that Article A-1 country-made pistol which was seized from the spot, just after incident, was in a workable condition and the sign of firing was dictated by that firearm. A used cartridge which was also seized from spot was said to be fired by the country-made pistol Article A-1. He also opined that the part of led slug which was found in the dead body on postmortem and was sealed by Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-1), was the part of fired cartilage Article-P/1. On the basis of this scientific evidence thus it is found proved beyond doubts that the pistol seized from the spot was fired and the bullet (a part of cartridge) marked as Article-P/1 hit the body of Rakshapal which obviously was part of the led slug of the bullet which was removed from the dead body of deceased at time of postmortem as per the report itself. A hole of firearm shot marked as Article N-1 found on a shirt marked as Article C/1 belonging to the deceased which contained blood also was reported to be made by firing of led projectile, however, no presence of blackening around the hole was dictated during chemical examination. A knife Article-G seized from accused Mahipal was found to be blood stained.

Dr. A.D. Sharma (PW-3) deposed that on 22nd March 1999 he examined injured Ganga Vishan and found one wound of size 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. x bony vertically present on left frontal lobe of scalp, clotted blood was present. The said injury as per the opinion of the doctor was caused by sharp edged object within 12 hours and was not possible by pelting stone. The doctor also advised for x-ray examination of the injured. The injury report is Ex. P/4.

On going through the statements of eye-witnesses of the case together with other evidences on record, it appears that eye witnesses of the incident, namely, Ganga Vishan (PW-4), Deewan Singh (PW-5) and Naval Singh (PW-6) were closed relatives of the deceased and they also developed an enmity with accused prior to the incident and that both the parties were involved in cases of violent incidents of murder vis-a-vis attempt to murder registered against each other. It also appeared from evidence that prior to the present incident, there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused Mahadev. It further appears that during commission of incident, all shops on the spot were closed. No independent witness came forward to state reality before the I.O. In such a case, where except the evidence of eye-witnesses no independent witness is available, whether the evidence of eye-witness can be relied upon to convict the accused.

In the case of Jalpat Rai and Others Vs. State of Haryana, , the Hon. Apex court held as follows:-

The eyewitnesses are not only much interested in the prosecution case but they are inimically disposed towards the accused party as well. The deep rooted enmity and serious disputes between these witnesses on the one hand and Accused-and his sons on the other and their unflinching interest in the prosecution case necessitate that the evidence of interested eye witnesses is considered with care and caution. To find out intrinsic worth of these witnesses, it is appropriate to test their trustworthiness and credibility in light of the collateral and surrounding circumstances as well as the probabilities and in conjunction with all other facts brought out on record. There cannot be a rule of universal application that if the eye-witnesses to the incident are interested in prosecution case and/or are disposed inimically towards the accused persons, there should be corroboration to their evidence. The evidence of eye-witnesses, irrespective of their interestedness, kinship, standing or enmity with the accused, if found credible and of such a caliber as to be regarded as wholly reliable could be sufficient and enough to bring home the guilt of the accused. But it is reality in life, albeit unfortunate and sad, that human failing tends to exaggerate, over-implicate and distort the true version against the person/s with whom there is rivalry, hostility and enmity. Cases are not unknown where entire family is roped in due to enmity and simmering feelings although one or only few members of that family may be involved in the crime. In the circumstances of the present case, to obviate any chance of false implication due to enmity of the complainant party with the accused party and the interestedness of interested eye witnesses in the prosecution case, it is prudent to look for corroboration of their evidence by medical/ballistic evidence and seek adequate assurance from the collateral and surrounding circumstances before acting on their testimony. The lack of corroboration from medical and ballistic evidence and the circumstances brought out on record may ultimately persuade that in fact their evidence cannot be safely acted upon.

It is well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. The said evidence only requires scrutiny with more care and caution, so that neither the guilty escapes nor the innocent is wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, then it can be acted upon.

Having gone through the evidence of the eyewitnesses of the incident, namely, Ganga Vishan (PW-4), Deewan Singh (PW-5) and Naval Singh (PW-6) adduced before the trial Judge and looking to the first version of the incident recorded in the F.I.R. (Ex. P/5), it appears that on 22nd April 1999 at about 6-15 p.m., in the evening, complainant and his nephew Rakshpal Singh were going for treatment of stomach pain suffered by Rakshpal Singh to the hospital of Dr. Hari Verma. When they reached near vegetable market, all four accused reached there and asked why they quarrelled with accused Mahadev. The complainant party repudiated the allegation of quarrelling with Mahadev. Then, on provocation by accused Ajent, another co-accused Mahadev with an intention to cause death fired by his country made pistol, however, the said shot did not hit anybody. Thereafter on provocation by another co-accused Mahipal, accused Mahadev again opened fire by his county made pistol which caused injury on the back of Rakshpal Singh. It is alleged that accused Mahadev left one pistol on the spot. R.S. Kushwah (PW-10), the I.O. deposed that on 22nd April 1999 he prepared seizure memo of simple and blood socked soil from the spot vide Ex. P/6, seizure memo of country-made pistol vide Ex. P/7 alongwith one fired cartridge from the spot. Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-1) deposed that on 23rd April 1999 at about 8-05 a.m., he performed autopsy on the person of deceased Rakshpal Singh and during examination he found one gunshot injury alongwith several incised wounds on the dead body. It is clearly indicated in the evidence of the doctor that only one gunshot fire hit on the back of Rakshpal Singh, as no other gunshot wound was found by him. The other country-made pistol was not recovered from the accused Mahadev. Even if we leave aside the omissions in the statements of the eyewitnesses, in the version of the F.I.R. and case diary statements of the witnesses mentioned above, it is gathered that first gunshot on provocation of accused Ajent was fired by accused Mahadev on the deceased but it did not hit him as proved from the medical evidence. Again, on going through the statements of eye-witnesses above, it appears that accused Ajent following the injured inflicted a blow on left side of back of Rakshpal by means of a Gupti (Big knife). Rakshpal fell down on the ground. Thereafter, accused Mahipal and Raghunandan caused 4-5 injuries by knife towards the left ribs and chest of Rakshpal who was lying on the ground. Rakshpal died on the spot. However, this fact is not mentioned in the F.I.R. (Ex. P/5). At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the evidence of Ramanand (PW-11) In-charge of the police station Ambah who deposed that on 28th April 1999 during part investigation, he arrested accused Mahipal by arrest memo (Ex. P/19) and seized the weapon ''knife'' from his residence vide seizure memo (Ex. P/10). In the evidence of Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-1) he mentioned six incised wounds on various parts of body which were caused by one knife as the width of the injuries was 2 cm. As per chemical report, the knife seized from accused Mahipal was found blood stained. Undoubtedly, therefore, it can be safely said that the accused Mahipal caused injuries by using knife to Rakshpal which became fatal to his life.

So far as the role played by co-accused Rahunanadan is concerned, he caused injury on head of the complainant Ganga Vishan by pelting stone. Though eye-witnesses Ganga Vishan, Naval Singh and Deevan Singh stated that accused Raghunandan caused injuries by pelting stone on the head of Ganga Vishan but their evidence is not supported by medical evidence of Dr. A.D. Sharma (PW-3) who opined that the said injury was caused on the head of Ganga Vishan by sharp edged weapon. Apart from it, no such stone from the spot was recovered by the Investigating Officer. Though the prosecution witnesses have mentioned in their evidence that accused Raghunandan has also caused injuries by means of knife on the body of Rakshpal Singh but their evidence is not corroborated by Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-1). No knife used as weapon of crime was recovered from accused Raghunandan by Investigating officer. Further the statement of Dr. G.C. Arya (PW-1) in this respect is very material which justifies that all incised injuries were caused by one sharp edged weapon. So, the version of eye-witnesses regarding causing knife injury by accused Raghunandan to the deceased is not supported by medical evidence as well as recovery of the weapon of crime from him. Thus, on detailed discussions of the evidence on record, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the role attributed to accused Raghunandan in commission of crime.

As discussed above, from the evidence on record, it stands proved that the accused-appellants Mahipal and Mahadev caused injuries on the person of deceased Rakshpal Singh, resulting his death. It is trite in law that if a man deliberately strikes another with a deadly weapon so as to cause death, he must, in the absence of any circumstances negativing the presumption, be deemed to have intended to cause death of the victim or such bodily injury as is sufficient to cause death. Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, weapon seized from accused Mahipal, incised wounds on different part of the person of deceased coupled with medical evidence clearly implicate him in commission of murder. It is not a case of solitary blow but a number of injuries were caused by accused Mahipal hence the intention and knowledge to cause death has been amply demonstrated and proved.

As regards the offence committed by accused Mahadev under the Arms Act, on perusal of the evidence we find that he was having firearms (country-made pistol) without any valid licence for its possession which amounted to contravention of section 3 of the Act and therefore the learned trial court has rightly convicted accused Mahadev for commission of offence u/s 25(1B)(a) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. No interference as such is called for in his conviction and sentence under the Act.

Thus, we are of the firm opinion that in the facts and circumstances, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused appellants Mahipal and Mahadev caused injuries on the person of the Rakshpal Singh resulting his death. It has also been proved that the injuries caused to the deceased were neither accidental nor unintentional. Once the existence of the injuries on the person of deceased is proved, the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. There is no such evidence or circumstances to draw some other conclusion except that the present appellants Mahipal and Mahadev intended to inflict or cause injuries resulting in death of the deceased. From the totality of the circumstances, the only possible inference to be drawn by us is that the appellants Mahipal and Mahadev caused bodily injuries with intention to cause death of deceased Rakshpal Singh and therefore the learned trial court has not committed any mistake in awarding impugned sentences to these accused, particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and seriousness of the offence proved against them.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions on the factual and legal aspects of the matter, Cr. Appeal No. 314/2001 filed by accused/appellant Raghunandan is allowed. His impugned conviction and sentence for commission of offence u/s 302/34 of I.P.C. stands set aside. He is on bail. He needs not surrender. His bail bond and surety bond accordingly shall stand discharged. At same time, Cri. Appeal Nos. 312/01 and 316/01 are hereby dismissed being sans substratum. Appellant Mahipal of Criminal Appeal No. 312/01 is on bail. He shall surrender to the custody before the Trial Court on or before 18th February, 2013 so as to serve out the remaining part of his sentence confirmed by this Court under the judgment. His bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.