BHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against a Judgment dated 15 th September 2011 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 288/2010 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Basoda, district Vidisha thereby convicting the accused/appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to pay fine, he was directed to suffer further R.I. of four months for committing murder of Munshilal. However, by the same judgment, the appellant was acquitted of the charge for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of I.P.C. by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case, are that on 21 st June 2010 at a bout 1-45 p.m., in the noon, Munshilal complainant/deceased was at his house, situated in village Kotra, Police Station Karariya district Vidisha. At that time, accused Bhaiyalal reached there having armed with a wooden stick and hurled abuses to him. On raising objection, it is alleged that the accused inflicted injuries by means of the weapon held by him on various parts of the body of complainant. On the report by the injured/complainant, an FIR was lodged by the police against accused, which was registered at Crime No.120/10 for commission of offence under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of I.P.C. After lodging the FIR, the injured was referred for examination and treatment to the District Hospital Vidisha from where the injured was again referred for better treatment to Hamidia Hospital Bhopal. During treatment at Bhopal, he died. On the report from the authority of the Hospital, a Marg was registered. After arrest of the accused, on his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence was recovered from him. The articles seized were then sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Laboratory Sagar. After inquiry and further investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the trial court. After trial, the trial Judge convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above, hence, this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. is bad in law. It is submitted that there are material contradictions in between the court statements and the case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is contended that the accused/appellant on the ground of previous enmity was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Further, the recovery of the weapon of crime also does not support the prosecution story. The medical evidence totally belies the prosecution case inasmuch as the compliance under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. was not satisfactorily proved. On the basis of above arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the present appeal, the accused/appellant be acquitted of the alleged offence.