BOLWARAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 06-09-1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, District Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 122/96. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Bolwaram has been convicted under Sections 304 Part II and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under Section 201 IPC, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(2.) Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the dead body of the deceased was not recovered. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The report was lodged after 25 days. He further argued that the finding of guilt recorded on the basis of evidence of last seen together, memorandum statement of the appellant and recovery of tangiya, clothes and broken wood is unreasonable. The above circumstances are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if the circumstances are taken on their face value, it cannot be said that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased. Learned counsel further argued that the seized articles were not properly identified. It is well settled that a strong suspicion is no substitute for a proof, therefore, the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

(3.) Shri Anand Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court.