BHAGWANDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Bhagwandas stands convicted under Section 302, IPC, with sentence of imprisonment for life, vide judgment dated 29.12.1986, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 33/86. Short facts, essential for deciding this appeal, are that Smt. Kallo Bai (since deceased) was appellant's wife and there used to be frequent quarrels between the couple on account of day -to -day domestic affairs. Accused Bhagwandas on some such occasions used to physically assault his wife Kallo Bai. In the above background, on 10.9.1985, accused Bhagwandas opened an assault on his wife Kallo Bai by means of a lathi. Her cries attracted Kaushalya Bai (PW 1), Gouri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11) who saw accused Bhagwandas dealing blows on his wife Kallo Bai. The First Information Report (Ex. P -8), about the incident, was lodged by Gulab which gave rise to the registration of a case at Crime No. 449/85 at Police Station, Sihora, District Jabalpur. After performing the necessary formalities of preparing inquest etc., the body of Kallo Bai was sent for post -mortem ex - amination. The Autopsy Surgeon found as many as 5 external injuries on the body of Kallo Bai, as detailed in post - mortem report (Ex. P -9). In his opinion, the cause of death of Kallo Bai was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the external injuries found on her body. During the course of investigation accused Bhagwandas was arrested and in pursuance to the information given by him under Section 27, of the Evidence Act, a lathi was seized from his possession on 12.9.1985. Police Sihora, after completing the investigation, charge -sheeted accused Bhagwandas for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.

(2.) ACCUSED Bhagwandas adjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. At the trial prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, whereas accused Bhagwandas chose not to examine any witness in his defence.

(3.) THE appellant's conviction was sought to be challenged on the ground that the case diary statements of the three eye -witnesses were not recorded on the same day but were recorded next day, and as these witnesses claim to have seen the incident of assault on Kallo Bai from a considerable distance, their evidence cannot be relied upon.