SAKHARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sakharam and Awadhrani, aged about 16 and 17/18 were together in a one room-house belonging to Sakharam's grand father in a village. Awadhrani was married to Sakharam's uncle (father's younger brother). A gun-shot was heard and the neighbours rushed to the room. Awadhrani was found lying dead on the floor with a gun-shot injury. Sakharam was standing nearby and was crying. On these facts the trial Court convicted Sakharam for the murder of Awadhrani and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed. Hence this appeal via special leave.

(2.) The appellant along with his father and grandfather was living in a village near Jabalpur. Awadhrani was the wife of Govindprasad, uncle of the appellant. Govindprasad was employed at Bhopal and Awadhrani was living with him. A few days before the incident appellant's grandfather had suffered heart attack and was shifted to Jabalpur Medical College. Appellant's father and mother were attending on his grandfather at the hospital. Awadhrani had come from Bhopal to Jabalpur to see her father-in-law. She stayed at Jabalpur for about 3/4 days and thereafter went to the village where the appellant was staying alone in the family house. After about 8/10 days of stay in the village on October 29,1968 at about noon time the neighbours heard a gun-shot sound from the house of the appellant. Mahadeo (P.W.4), one of the neighbours, was the uncle of the appellant. As soon as Mahadeo reached appellant's house, the appellant, while crying, told him "run uncle what was happened." The neighbours found Awadhrahi lying dead on the floor and a 12 bore gun lying on the bed. It is not disputed that the appellant's grandfather had two licenced gun's which were lying in the same room.

(3.) There is no direct evidence against the appellant. There is no reason, conscious or subconscious, for the appellant to commit the murder. They have been together in the one room-house for about 8/ 10 days. The appellant denied having committed the offence but gave no explanation as to how and under what circumstances the deceased got the fatal gun-shot injury.