SUKLIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and his son, Kadu were charged for the offence punishable under section 302/34 I. P. C. for allegedly committing the murder of Jadu. The trial court acquitted the appellant but convicted the co-accused, son of the appellant. In the acquittal appeal filed by the state, the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant was set aside vide the judgement impugned in this appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on 29th may, 1992 Vestia, PW-6 and his son Jadu (deceased) had gone to attend the marriage of Nanli, the daughter of Kekadiya, at village Mordhi where the appellant and his son had also come. When, after attending the marriage, PW-6 and his son were returning home, they were intercepted by the appellant and his son. The appellant is alleged to have fired gun shot at the deceased and his son Kadu shot arrows. Consequently, Jadu, after receiving the injury, died on the spot. The gun allegedly used by the appellant was recovered but not sent for ballistic expert opinion as to whether it had been fired or not.

(3.) At the trial. Kekadiya-PW 1. Mangllya- pw 2, Manu-PW 3 and Harsingh-PW 4 who were examined as eyewitnesses turned hostile. Relying upon the testimony of PW-6, the trial court found that no case was found against the appellant and acquitted him. The trial court did not accept the testimony of PWs 6 and 7 in so far as the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime was concerned. It was found that the injuries caused to the deceased allegedly by gun shot were not attributable to the appellant, which probablised that he was not present on spot when the occurrence took place. While deciding the appeal against acquittal, the High Court found that in view of the testimony of PWs 6 and 7, the trial court was not justified in returning the finding of acquittal so far as the appellant is concerned.