RAJOO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTED accused/appellant, Rajoo, has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 22.1.1990 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 214/88 convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and imposing sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default thereof, to suffer two months' further rigorous imprisonment. In brief, the case of prosecution is that 7 -8 days prior to the date of incident, there had been a squabble between deceased Banu Barman and one Chhinga Mehler. On the date of incident, 28.11.1997, at 6 p.m., the accused and the deceased, reached near the shop of PW -2, Pandit Banshilal, near which a well is situated. The brother of deceased, Pappu (PW -1) was storing the water. The further case of the prosecution is that near the place of occurrence, altercation continued between the deceased and the accused. The accused, as the allegation proceeds, called the deceased a 'scavenger' as he was assaulted by a person belonging to that strata. The deceased reacted to the same and in turn stated that the accused and his father were 'scavengers'. In reply the accused said that, as deceased was denoting his father to be a scavenger, he would be killed. The accused thereafter went inside his house and came along with a Spear. His wife tried to stop him but she was thrust by the accused. Pandit Banshilal (PW -2) and Pappu (PW -1) also requested him to stop, but, he did not pay any heed and gave a blow of spear on the neck of deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and died.

(2.) THE brother of deceased, namely. Pappu (PW -1) when came to the spot, found the deceased was besmeared with the blood and was dead. The accused when observed that deceased has died, fled from the spot. The incident was reported by Pappu (PW -1), the brother of deceased, at the police station soon after the incident within half an hour, at 6.30 p.m. The first Information Report is Ex.P -1 which set the criminal law in motion. Hardas Bairagi (PW -12) Town Inspector of Police Station Garha, reached the spot and found the dead body lying there. A 'Panchanama' (Ex.P -10) was prepared, and the dead -body was sent to Medical College for post -mortem. Shri Bairagi seized the blood -stained earth, ordinary earth, the broken pieces of bangles of the wife of accused from his house and also seized the spear. The blood stained clothes of deceased were seized, the accused was arrested on 29.11.1987 and after the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed under Section 302 IPC in the competent Court, which committed the matter to the Court of Session. The learned Trial Judge, framed charge under Section 302 IPC, which was denied by the accused/appellant. His defense is on of false implication. The prosecution, so as to bring home the charge, examined as many as 13 witnesses. Pappu (PW -1) is the author of First Information Report (Ex.P -1) and also an eye -witness. The other eye -witnesses are Banshilal (PW -2) and Lal Singh (PW -7) but they had turned hostile, Phoolwati (PW -3) is the wife of deceased who arrived at the spot, upon the information being supplied to her that her husband had been killed. Madhav Prasad (PW -4) is the formal witness of seizure memo of the dead -body, Pratap Singh (PW -5) is Constable who carried the dead -body of deceased to Medical College for post -mortem, Parwati Bai (PW -6), Virendra Kumar Palwari (PW -8), Beni Prasad (PW -9) and Bhagwandeen (PW -10) are the formal witnesses. Arjun (PW -11) is the witness of seizure of blood stained spear. Hardas Bairagi (PW -12) is the investigating officer and Dr. B.M. Shrivastava (PW -13) is the Autopsy surgeon.

(3.) THE autopsy surgeon, Dr. B.M. Shrivastava, conducted the post -mortem on 29.11.1987 and notice deep incised wound 4" x 3" x 3" (deep over left side neck) extending from 3" below left cutting the cervical vertebra, soft tissues, veins, trachea, esophagus and spinal cord. The Doctor opined that the injury caused was homicidal in nature and was caused by hard and sharp object. According to the Doctor the cause of death was shock, due to chopping off carotid arteries and spinal cord. His report is Ex. P -15. The learned Trial Judge, after carefully scrutinizing the ocular and documentary evidence, held that the accused/appellant did commit the murder and found the charge of Section 302 IPC to be proved, as a result of which convicted the accused and passed the sentence mentioned hereinabove. The accused/appellant feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and sentence, has filed this appeal. Mr. Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions: