JABAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a statutory appeal challenging the order of the High Court whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution story one Badan Singh, a cousin of Sarnam Singh (deceased in the present case) had been murdered about 25 years ago whereafter Inder Singh and Ramjit Singh, sons of Badan Singh had sold their land to the deceased and had left the village. The house of Badan Singh was also being occupied by Sarnam Singh. The relatives of Badan Singh suspected that one Kedar Singh was responsible for his death. On 11th November, 1984, the dead body of Kedar Singh was seen floating in the canal and the accused in the present matter suspected that Sarnam Singh and some others connected with him were responsible for his death. On 13th November, 1984 at about 8 or 9 P.M. the accused, all armed with fire arms, entered the house of Sarnam Singh whereafter Jabar Singh, the appellant herein, fired a shot at him which hit him on the navel and exited from the right buttock. Sarnam Singh, grievously injured, managed to run away towards his fields where he fell down. The other accused remained standing on the Chabutra and continued firing at Sarnam Singh though no shot hit him. Sarnam Singh was removed on a Bullock cart to police station Mehgaon by Sultan (PW.2), Umed Singh (PW.5), Munnalal (PW.1), shiv Narayan (PW.8) and Chhote Singh (PW.10) where Sarnam Singh himself lodged the FIR at 0.45 hours on 14th November, 1984. Dr. F.C. Bansal (PW.4) also examined Sarnam Singh and noted several injuries on his person. He also arranged for the recording of his dying declaration on which Amrish Shrivastava (PW.15) an Executive Magistrate, was deputed and he recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P.12). Sarnam Singh was also referred to the Gwalior Hospital where Dr. C.S. Jaiswal (PW.16) recorded another dying declaration (Ex.P.13). Sarnam Singh succumbed to his injuries on 28th November, 1984 where after his dead body was subjected to a post-mortem by Dr. R.C. Upadhyaya (PW.14).

(3.) The Trial Court on a perusal of the evidence as also the four dying declarations referred to above held that the accused had not been properly identified and as there appeared to be long enmity between the parties, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. The accused were accordingly acquitted.