Case: ASHARAM TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

3. The genesis of the occurrence lay in certain lands purchased by PW-1, from the father of the appellant. Peeved, the appellant along with the co-accused came to the lands of PW-1 and asked him to return the lands to him. On refusal by PW-1, the accused are said to have threatened the witness and assaulted PW-1, his wife PW-4, their 12 years old son Ramashankar who was deceased within twenty four hours during course of treatment and their minor daughter. The appellants are then said to have proceeded to the house of Ramdas, the brother of PW-1, and shot him dead in presence of his son PW-2.

Reasoning: 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record.7. The appellant was unhappy that his father had sold lands to PW-1 and wanted them back. The four accused came to the lands of PW-1 and threatened him to return the lands. On his refusal to do so, A3 and A4 first assaulted him with an axe. A1 and the appellant assaulted him with lathis. PW-4, and her two children came to the rescue of PW-1. They were also assaulted and injured. A3 and A4 assaulted Ramashankar on the head with the blunt edge and sharp edge of an axe respectively. The appellant and A1 also assaulted him with lathis. He died 24 hours later during the course of the treatment at the hospital.8. The accused persons then together went to the house of the second deceased, Ramdas, the brother of PW-1. Accused no.3 shot him dead while Accused no.4 assaulted him with the sharp edge of an axe. The appellant and A1 assaulted him with lathis. PW-2 was an eye witness to the assault.11. PW-1 and PW-4 are both injured witnesses. They have both been found to be reliable and truthful. We see no reason why they would falsely implicate another, when the deceased was their own minor son. Similarly, PW-2 is the son of the second deceased, an eye witness to the killing of his father at home. The failure to examine any available independent witness is inconsequential. It is the quality of the evidence and not the number of witnesses that is relevant. It is nobodys case of the accused that PW-1 and PW-4 were not injured in the same occurrence or that PW-2 was not an eye witness.12. The number and nature of hard blunt injuries on the two deceased make it apparent that the assailants were more than one. Injuries by hard and blunt substance corroborate the evidence of the injured witnesses and PW-2 of assault on the two deceased by lathis also. Common intention is evident from the accused persons coming to the lands of PW-1 armed and intimidating him to return the lands followed by assault upon him and those who came to his rescue. The accused then immediately proceeded to the house of the second deceased. The recovery of a bloodstained lathi and bloodstained clothes of the appellant on his confession, leaves us satisfied, on a cumulative appreciation of the evidence, that the accused were actuated by a common intention. The conviction of the appellant therefore calls for no interference.