HARI SINGH GOND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur confirming the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') as recorded by learned Sessions Judge Mandla in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1995 who imposed sentences of imprisonment for life and three years respectively.

(2.) Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, during trial are as follows : Harilal Gond (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was the maternal grandfather in law of the accused and in the night of incident accused, deceased and his samdhi Motilal were sleeping in the same house. Shyamlal (PW1), son in law of the deceased brought his son in law accused Hari Singh on 23.2.1995 to Mohda from Singanpuri for treatment. On 25.2.1995 in the evening Motilal (PW2) the father of Shyamlal and his samdhi i.e. deceased and son in law i.e. accused Hari Singh were sleeping in the same room after having their meal. Shyamlal alone was sleeping in his room. Shyamlal got up around 3-3.30 after hearing the shouting of his son in law who was pushing his door. Then accused ran towards him to beat and in fact beat Shyamlal with the lathi which he was carrying in his hand. Shyamlal ran away and went to the house of Baldan. After sometime he observed that his house was burning. Then he came running towards his house and conveyed the same to the villagers. When he went along with villagers to his house then the villagers Mulloo Singh, Chamru Singh etc. caught hold of accused Hari Singh and they observed that there was a fire in the room where Harilal the father in law of Shyamlal was sleeping and his father in law was burnt and had died. Motilal the father of the Shyamlal told him that Hari Singh had slapped him at his cheek and had also kicked him at his back and by taking lathi and trishul he ran after him, then he also ran away. Then accused started beating deceased Harilal with stick and accused hit Harilal several times due to which Harilal died. Then accused put some grains on fire which were lying in that room, due to which not only the house caught the fire but Harilal was also burnt. The incident was reported by Shyam Lal in writing to police chowki Maneri of police station Bija Dandi at 9.00 A.M. in the morning and the report is Ex. P-1. On conducting the post-mortem of Harilal, the whole dead body was found to have been burnt, there were many injuries on his body and there was fracture in the head and all the injuries were ante mortem. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since accused pleaded innocence, trial was held. The trial court relied on the evidence of eye witness Moti Lal (PW 2) while Kali Bai (PW 4) corroborated the statement of eye witness about the unusual behaviour of the accused. The trial court found the evidence to be cogent and accordingly recorded conviction and imposed sentence as noted above. It did not accept the plea that Section 84 IPC has application. In appeal before the High Court the stand about unsoundness of mind and protection under Section 84 IPC was pressed into service. The prosecution on the other hand submitted that Section 84 has no relevance or application. High Court accepted State's stand and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

(3.) In the present appeal it was submitted that the unusual behaviour of the accused has been stated by even the eye witnesses PW2 and PW 4 and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in rejecting the plea of protection under Section 84 of the Act.