NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 19, 1980 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1978. By the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1978 preferred by the appellant Narayan Singh against his conviction under S. 302, IPC and sentence for imprisonment of life imposed by the learned Iind Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1975.

(2.) The Short fact of the case of the prosecution is that on plot No. 8 at Jabaran Colony. Indore, a machine for preparing kali dar koyala was fixed and the said plot was leased out by the deceased, Balkishan to the accused on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The deceased Balkishan had already stored coal-pieces on the said plot worth about Rs. 700/- and the accused promised that he would pay Rs. 700/- towards the cost of the said pieces of coal. That apart, coal-pieces worth Rs. 1500/- were also stored on the said plot after the delivery of the machine on account of certain past transaction and the accused also promised that he would pay Rs. 700/- and also Rs. 1500/- towards the cost of the coal-pieces by April 13,1978. When the deceased Balkishan demanded the amount from the accused the accused told him that he would pay the said amount on the 16th. Again when on April 16,1978, the brother of the deceased went to recover the said amount from the accused, he said that he would pay the amount in the evening. In the evening, when the deceased went to the accused, the accused was not available. Thereafter, on 17th morning, there was a talk between the accused and the deceased on plot No. 8 and the accused told the deceased that he would vacate the plot but he did not pay his dues to the deceased. The accused told the deceased that he would talk to his father to ascertain what amount should be paid. The accused took the deceased to his plot No. 216 situated at Pulshikar Colony, Indore. At the said plot some talk took place between the deceased and the father of the accused. In the meantime, PW 1 Mahendra Singh also came there. When Mahendra Singh came, the accused was not present but shortly thereafter the accused came and the accused told Balkishan that he had unnecessarily spoiled his mood and thereafter he took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and dealt 4-5 blows on the deceased Balkishan. Balkishan sustained injuries on his chest, stomach and other vital parts of the body and died on the spot. The only eye-witness of the occurrence was Mahendra Singh. He stated that although he had seen the accused taking out knife but being completely perplexed he moved his head and ultimately did not see the actual stabbing but he found the deceased lying in injured condition and he ran away and the accused also ran away,. He thereafter informed the brother of the accused about the said incident. Accepting the evidence of the said eye-witness, the trial court convicted the accused for the murder of the deceased and the High Court has also affirmed the said conviction and sentence.

(3.) Mr. M. C. Dhingra, learned counsel as amicuscuriae in this case has submitted before us that on the sole testimony of Mahendra Singh, that order of conviction has been passed by the courts below but there is infirmity in the said deposition of Mahendra Singh. Mahendra Singh has not actually seen the stabbing. He became very sensitive when he saw the accused taking out the knife and thereafter he moved away his face and ultimately left the place. Hence, there was no occasion to see the commission of murder. It is an admitted position that the father of the accused was also present at the place and, therefore, it cannot be definitely concluded that the accused caused the said murder. In the aforesaid circumstances, benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant. That apart, the conduct of the only eye-witness Mahendra Singh was also strange because instead of informing the family of the deceased, he reported the matter to the brother of the accused. If this is unusual behaviour of the eye-witness is taken into consideration, no reliance can be placed on this witness. In the aforesaid facts, the conviction was not at all warranted.