BARJIYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2001 passed by the Court of Shri A.R.Dhruv, Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa, West Nimad in S.T.No. 84/ 2000, by which the appellant Barjiya has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. According to the prosecution case, on 27.08.1999 Jadiya along with Sarpanch Pohalsingh and Kalsingh lodged the report that in the night, at about 9.00 p.m., he was sleeping at his house and on hearing the cries of his brother Aapsingh and the children of Barjiya that "mar diya mar diya", he reached the house of Aapsingh and found Barjiya was caught hold by Aapsingh. He told him that Barjiya has murdered his wife Kalibai by assaulting with an axe on her head, thigh and hand. The dead body was lying inside the house. Pinta the daughter of Barjiya told that Barjiya assaulted her younger brother, on which her mother objected, on this point accused Barjiya rushed with axe on his mother, then Pinta and her mother ran towards the house of her uncle. There Barjiya assaulted and killed her mother. Thereafter Sarpanch Pohalsingh was called and he was informed with the incident and thereafter the report was lodged. Hence, on report Crime No. 122/99 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Pansemal, District Badwani and after investigation challan was filed. After trial the appellant has been convicted as mentioned above.

(2.) It has been argued by the Counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The independent witnesses Jadiya (PW-3), Mohansingh (PW-4) and Bachcha (PW-5) did not support the prosecution case. Aapsingh (PW-1) and Dedubai (PW-6) were not the eye witness but they reached on the spot after hearing the noise but the Trial Court has believed them erroneously. The Court has relied on the statement of Pinta (PW-2) while her statement was not supported by any independent witness. There were serious omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, hence the appeal should be allowed.

(3.) It has been argued by the Counsel for the respondent that the appellant was rightly convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution. The incident was witnessed by Pinta (PW-2), the daughter of the deceased. The other witnesses Aapsingh (PW-1), Dedubai (PW-6) and Bachcha (PW-5) are the eye witnesses of the incident, hence the case was proved. This appeal should be dismissed being devoid of merit.