LAWS(MPH)-2010-8-63

RAMESH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On August 04, 2010
RAMESH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2000 passed by learned Forth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 207/90 convicting appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine Rs.2,500, in default, three months further R.I., this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IN brief the case of prosecution is that on 22.2.1990 one Yashpal Wadhva gave information to Station Officer-in-charge, Gwalior Prakash Singh at Hajira Chauki that his brother Onkar (here in after referred to as "the deceased") is not traceable and a missing report in that regard in Police Station,Padav, has already been made. The said Yashpal Wadhva made suspicion against Chandu Maratha and appellant Ramesh and told that if they are interrogated, the whereabouts of his brother (the deceased) can be traced out. Thereafter, Station Officer-in-charge Prakash Singh made enquiry from police station, Padav, and by sending Head Constable Devesh, accused persons Chandu Maratha and appellant Ramesh were searched. After the appellant was found on 24.2.1990 at Police Chauki Hajira in presence of witnesses Virendra and Roshan Singh, he gave information about killing of the deceased. The said memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was reduced in writing. According to memorandum statement of appellant, after killing the deceased, his dead-body was thrown in the well. On the basis of memorandum statement at the instance of appellant from the well of Ramsingh The kedar situated at Talaiya Mohalla, the dead-body of the deceased was taken out and seized. Necessary Panchnama in that regard was also pre- pared. The dead-body of the deceased was identified by Devendra Wadhva to be that of his brother who is the deceased. The witnesses were called and Paychayatnama of the dead-body was prepared. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. According to the autopsy surgeon, the deceased had died on account of drowning.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to hold that charge under Section 302/34 of IPC has been found to be proved against the appellant, as a result of which, convicted him and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove.