Prafulla C. Pant ORDER
N.V. Ramana, J.
1. This appeal arises out of impugned judgment and Order dated 12th January, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 1994 upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the Appellant herein for the offence punishable Under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts, limited for the purpose of dealing with this appeal, as divulged by the prosecution case are that on 6th January, 1992, Hira Singh Gond (Complainant--PW 7) lodged an FIR at Bahri Police Station, Sidhi District stating that his brother Mangal Singh had gone to the fields to answer nature's call, when Baliraj Singh (A1 & Appellant herein) and Baijnath Singh (A2) attacked him (Mangal Singh) with lathis causing instantaneous death of Mangal Singh. Accordingly police registered Crime No. 5/92 against the accused, body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, lathis allegedly used in the crime were seized at the instance of the Accused and charges were framed against them Under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, while no one was examined on the defense side. On the basis of statements of eyewitnesses, Ramrati (PW 9--wife of the deceased), Chameli (PW 8--wife of the complainant and sister-in-law of the deceased), and Lakhan Singh (PW 12--family friend of the deceased), and considering the medical evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that Accused were guilty of committing the murder of Mangal Singh (deceased). Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the Accused Under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, both the Accused filed criminal appeal before the High Court. However, during the pendency of appeal before the High Court, Baijnath Singh (A2) had died, therefore his sentence got abated. The High Court also found the statements of eyewitnesses to be cogent and trustworthy, therefore concurred with the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the Appellant-accused. Hence the present appeal by way of special leave.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. The case on behalf of the Appellant as advanced by the learned Counsel is that most of the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, particularly the eyewitnesses belong to one family and they had a longstanding grudge against the Accused over property dispute between both families, and hence the Appellant was falsely implicated in retaliation. The testimonies of Hira Singh (PW 7--brother of the deceased), Chameli (PW8--sister-in-law of the deceased), Ramrati (PW9--wife of the deceased) and Lakhan Singh (PW 12--family friend of the deceased) cannot be relied on as they were inconsistent and lack credibility. Besides they are contrary to the medical evidence. According to the own deposition of Lakhan Singh (PW 12--family friend of the deceased), he u........