KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st July, 1991 passed in S.T. No. 216/90, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment for causing homicidal death of deceased Premdas.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased were students of Class- XII. A year before the incident, the deceased had eveteased sister of the appellant during a drama staged in Village-Lohandiguda. They had quarreled on account of the above incident. In the previous night of the incident also, the deceased and the appellant had gone to see Durgotsav and there also, some oral altercation took place and deceased Premdas had slapped the appellant. Because of the above incident, the appellant nourished grudge with him. On 7.10.1989 at about 11, the deceased was going to school with PW-1 Pooran Singh, when the accused came from behind armed with an axe. Deceased Premdas tried to flee from there, however, he slipped and fell down and the appellant attacked him with an axe. PW-1 Pooran Singh ran towards the local post office, where his father Jai Singh (PW 2) worked. He narrated about the incident to his father Jai Singh. Report of the incident was lodged by Ghasiram (PW 3) vide Ex.P/3. After preparing inquest over the person of the deceased, the dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Lohandiguda where Dr. J.K. Verma (PW-10) conducted postmortem and gave his report of Ex.P/15. Weapon of offence - bloodstained axe and bicycle were taken into possession on being produced by the accused vide Ex.P/6 & P/7 respectively. Similarly, shirt and pant worn by the accused, stained with blood, were taken into possession vide Ex.P/16. Bloodstained articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. The FSL vide its report of Annexure P/17 opined that amongst other articles, axe, shirt and pant were stained with blood. However, report of the serologist is not available in the record.

(3.) SHRI Prafull Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of PW-1 Pooran Singh. The trial Court has considered him as an eyewitness of the incident, though from the evidence of this witness, it would be evident that he did not see the assault as he had fled from the place of incident. Thus, there is no eyewitness to the incident. He further argued that recovery of bloodstained clothes from the appellant has been heavily relied upon by the trial Curt as a corroboratory evidence, whereas there is no evidence that the appellant was wearing the aforesaid clothes at the time of incident and there is no scientific evidence that it contained human blood and that too, of the blood group of the deceased, therefore, the same cannot be considered to be an incriminating evidence against the appellant.