KAILASH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT being aggrieved by his conviction for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment by judgment dated

(2.) ND January, 1989, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No. 280/87, has preferred this appeal. 2. According to the prosecution on 15.2.1987 while PW 7 Constable Radhekrishna was returning to the Police Station Kotwali after the petrolling duty, he found Gorelal in an injured condition. On enquiry Gorelal stated to this Constable that he has been assaulted by appellant by knife. According to the prosecution, this Constable came to the Police Station and brought it to the notice of the Inspector of the Control Room. Thereafter, Gorelal was taken to the hospital in a Police vehicle. At the hospital, PW 8 R.K. Gujar came, where he has recorded the report given by Gorelal as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/12). According to the Dehati Nalishi, Kailash Soni i.e. the appellant had illicit relationship with his sister -in -law and he has objected to his visit at his place and as such the appellant was enimical to him. According to the Dehati Nalishi, while he was going to collect key from the proprietor of hotel Mukundi Maharaj in the morning, he met the appellant armed with knife in a lane near the house of one Dubey. Appellant assaulted him by knife on account of which he sustained injuries on his stomach, leg and back. According to the Dehati Nalishi in order to save himself he attempted to catch hold of the knife and in this attempt, he has sustained injuries on his right palm and thumb. On the basis of the aforesaid Dehati Nalishi, a first information report under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant.

(3.) THEREAFTER ,post -mortem was conducted on his person by PW 12 Dr. R.K. Shastri who found six injuries on his person. Police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and ultimately the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Appellant denied to have committed any offence and his plea is that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In order to sustain conviction, prosecution has altogether examined 12 witnesses. One defence witness has also been examined. As stated earlier, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution has sought conviction of the appellant on the basis of the dying declaration (Dehati Nalishi) and oral dying declaration given by the deceased before PW 7.