JASRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 302 Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his wife Kamla. According to the prosecution, on 20.05.1997 in the early hours of the day, the appellant thrashed his wife with a hammer and caused injuries on her face and she died on the spot. PW 1 Sonu, the son of the deceased Kamla, rushed to his uncle's house in the night itself and narrated the incident. PW 2 Hari Singh gave the information to the Murar Police Station and an FIR was registered against the appellant u/s. 302 Indian penal Code. The Sessions Judge as well as the High Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 and found the appellant guilty.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant contended that evidence of PW 1 cannot be relied on as he was tutored by the relatives and that it was highly improbable that he has gone to the house of his uncle during the night and informed the incident. We perused the evidence of PW 1. He has given the details of the incident and he deposed that while he was in the room the appellant had a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter he hit his mother with the hammer. This witness also says that the appellant demanded earrings of the deceased and on her refusal he snatched them and put in his trouser pocket. We do not think that PW 1 had given any false statement. The bloodstained hammer was recovered. In the course of investigation earrings were also recovered from the appellant and these items of evidence clearly corroborate with the evidence of PW 1. PW 2 supports the case of PW 1. However, it is improbable that he had seen the actual hitting made by the appellant. There is satisfactory evidence to prove the prosecution case.

(3.) The medical report shows that the deceased had injuries on her nose, chin and upper part of the face. Though there are multiple injuries, they could have been caused by a single blow and the doctor who conducted the postmortem does not dispute this fact. PW 1 child witness speaks about the quarrel between the appellant and his wife. It is quite possible that there must have been a sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion the appellant hit the deceased which resulted in her death. Therefore offence in our view, would only come within the purview of Sec. 304 Part I Indian Penal Code.