RAM BHAROSA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, having been aggrieved by a Judgment dated 17 th December 2002 in S.T. No. 169/2002 by the Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.), convicting the accused for commission of murder of Faili, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to pay fine to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of three months.

(2.) The facts, in short, for the decision of this appeal are that in the intervening night between 24 th and 25 th April, 2002, in the forest of village Moharikalan, deceased Faili was reported to be killed with an Axe by some unknown persons. A Marg Intimation Report and Dehati Nalish were lodged by Smt. Kaliyabai, mother of deceased at Police Station, Aron district Guna. During postmortem, it was found that fatal injuries were caused by some sharp edged weapon to the deceased and his death was homicidal in nature. On the day of incident accused Ram Bharosa was arrested and on his information, the weapon of crime, i.e., an 'Axe' was recovered which was examined by the doctor performing postmortem. The eye-witnesses and the material witnesses were examined. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court, having jurisdiction. On committal, the Sessions Judge after recording the entire evidence of the prosecution as well as defence, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned above, hence, this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is against the facts, evidence on record and the law applicable to the present case. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge based the conviction of the accused on the statement of Kres and Dhannu, whose conduct was totally unnatural and in view of the material contradictions and omissions crept in their versions, they appear to be unreliable witnesses. It is further argued that as per prosecution case, the appellant accompanied with the said two witnesses and deceased had taken the drink and these two persons were introduced as eye-witnesses in subsequent stage of investigation and in order to save themselves they had named the accused in the incident. It is thus contended that there is possibility of involvement of these witnesses in the alleged crime. It is further stated that the recovery of weapon from open place could not connect the appellant with the crime. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the accused/appellant be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.