STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BALWANTSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and finding dated 24-10-94 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Khargone in Sessions Trial No. 198/90 acquitting the Respondent for the murder of Jaipalsingh. The State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in nut-shell before the trial Court was that at 9.00 p.m. on 1-5-1990, the complainant Narayansingh resident of village Pokhar was lying on a cot and his nephew (Brother's son) Jaipalsingh) was also lying on another cot. At that juncture, the respondent, who was residing infront of their house, came over there having a KHARALIA (a wooden log used in bullockcart for support of luggage) and dealt a blow which lended on the head of Jaipalsingh. In intervention by Narayan Singh, he too was given a blow causing simple injury on his left palm. On cries being raised by Narayansingh, his son Kalu and many other persons had assembled there to whom the matter was disclosed by the complainant and his son. The respondent had assaulted the deceased on account of some previous verbal dispute took place between them before two three days.

(3.) The prosecution has examined PW 1 Narayansingh, PW 3 Kalusingh and PW 4 Dhapubai as eye-witnesses of the incident. the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant while disbelieving the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses on the basis of some contradictions in their Court statements with the case-diary statements as well as the contradictions occurring in their statements recorded in the Court. Narayansingh has been disbelieved on the ground that he is an old person of 75 years and he was not able to identify the assailant because of darkness. PW 3 Kalusingh has been disbelieved mainly on the ground that his version is at variance with the statement of his father Narayansingh and Dhapubai, and as a matter of fact neither Kalusingh nor Dhapubai had witnessed the incident, but they reached the spot later on. At that time, the respondent was not present on the scene of occrrence. PW 4 Dhapubai has been disbelieved mainly on the ground that her name and presence does not find place in the First Information Report (Ex. P/1) lodged on the next day.