BUDDHURAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th of January, 1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 433/91 by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted Under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I. for 5 years with further direction to run the sentences concurrently.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Deceased- Sone @ Harnarayan was resident of village- Kapan. In the night of 9.6.91 his dead body was found on the railway-track passing near the village. The merg intimation (Ex.P/13) was lodged by his brother Samaylal (PW-2). In the merg intimation, it was stated that the deceased consumed liquor on 9.6.91. Thereafter he did not return to his house. When search was made, his dead body was found on the railway-track. It was shown in the merg intimation that it was an accidental death. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notices (Ex.-P/14 & P/15) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/8) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to Primary Health Center, Akaltara, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. M. Bhagat (PW-6). He noticed many external injuries on the body of the deceased. He found injuries caused by bicycle-chain on the right and left scapula and right shoulder. He also noticed lacerated wound on the left knee. On internal examination, he found that there were depressed fractures over frontal and parietal bones. He opined that cause of death was coma due to head injury and it was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/5. After about 2 months, the Appellant was taken into custody on 12.8.91 and his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/9) was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and an adze (basula) was seized at the instance of the Appellant vide seizure memo Ex.-P/10. Later on, statements of Lalkunwar (PW-3 -mother of the deceased), Daoua (PW-5) and Gyanik Das (PW-7) etc. were recorded. The prosecution came with the case that prior to the incident a quarrel has taken place between the son of the Appellant and the deceased. The Appellant, his son and many other persons came to the house of the deceased and asked about the deceased. The deceased was not in the house. According to mother- Lalkunwar (PW-3), they were armed with weapons and were searching the deceased. After sometime, the deceased returned to the house, the mother told all this to him, on which, the deceased said to his mother that he has not quarreled with the son of the Appellant and saying that he is going to the house of the Appellant for telling all this, the deceased left his house at about 8-8.30 p.m. When he did not return for a long time, a search was made and his dead body was found on the railway-track. The further case of the prosecution is that at the relevant time, Daoua (PW-5) and Gyanik Das (PW-7) had seen the Appellant running away from the place where the dead body was found.

(3.) Following are the circumstances, on which, the prosecution relied: