PURANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 3rd of August, 1998, passed in Sessions Trial No. 399/1994 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of R.I. for 1 year. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--

(2.) Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the conviction is mainly based on the testimonies of father, brother and mother (P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-6); their case-diary statements were recorded after more than 11/2 months; though it comes in the evidence that Gopiram (P.W.-2) had lodged F.I.R., but the said document has not been filed by the prosecution; the Investigating Officer i.e. Mr. Ramesh Mishra (P.W.-7) has clearly admitted that the statements of these witnesses were recorded during the investigation of merg, but those statements were not filed along with the charge-sheet; therefore, the prosecution has suppressed the relevant material and the conviction based on the evidence of above three relative witnesses, whose statements were recorded after a long time cannot be sustained. He cited the decision of Samadhan Dhudaka Koli Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 16 SCC 705.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Manish Nigam, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. He has argued that a presumption would arise against the appellant under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and the conviction based on the testimonies of above witnesses as also on the said presumption was fully justified.