NANHU Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, at the relevant time Komalchand, a Constable was attached to the Police Station Changotola. In the morning of 19.6.1988 he reported for duty at the Police post and was assigned certain Police duties along with Constable Radharam Constable Radharam returned to the Police post at 8.40 p.m. but deceased Komalchand did not come back to the Police post. Constable Radharam gave report (Ex. P -31) to the said effect in the Police post.

(2.) PROSECUTION story further is that at about 10 p.m. on 19.6.1988, appellant Mehtu gave an oral information at the Police post, which was entered in Rojnamcha register (Ex. P -27), stating therein that the deceased Constable Komalchand has been assaulted by appellants Nanu, Radhe and Kanchan. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Head Constable Rajendra Prasad and Constable Girdharilal along with officer -in -charge of the Lamta Police Station went to the village Urnemeta in the night and made enquiries from the accused persons.

(3.) IN order to procure conviction, prosecution examined PW 1 Rajaram, PW 2 Santlal, PW 3 Shivcharan, PW 4 Tulsiram and PW 6 Tularam as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Besides the evidence of the eye witnesses, prosecution further brought on record circumstantial evidence to procure their conviction. The learned Judge on appreciation of evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, did not place any reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses. However, the trial Court relying on the circumstantial evidence, convicted the appellants. The circumstantial evidence relied on by the learned Judge while convicting the appellants finds incorporated in paragraph 51 of the judgment.