KALUA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against a Judgment dated 17 th October 2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 156/2004 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Morena, convicting the appellant for committing murder of Dinesh, son of Kedar Singh Baghel, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.PC. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) Facts, in brief, relevant for decision of this case are that on 29 th February 2004 at about 8 p.m., in night deceased Dinesh alongwith his cousin brother Sunil went to his Well, situated at their agriculture fields. On way, they met with accused Kalua @ Rajvir (present appellant). It is alleged that at that juncture, on some petty matter, a quarrel took place between the accused and deceased. At about 11 p.m., in night, Sunil reached at the deceased's residence and informed that accused Kalua throttled the neck of Dinesh by a cotton Muffler used by the villagers called Safee and committed his death. Father of deceased, namely, Kedar Singh alongwith Akbar, Nathhu and other family members and neighbours reached on the spot and saw that his son Dinesh was dead. Thereafter, Kedar Singh alongwith other persons went to the Police Station, Dimani district Morena and lodged the F.I.R., marked as Ex.P/9 which was registered at Crime No. 32/04 for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. against accused. At that time, Marg Report vide Ex.P/10 was also written. The investigation was set into motion. Postmortem was conducted on the body of deceased Dinesh; statements of eye-witness and other material witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. On committal to the Court of Sessions, the sessions trial commenced and after recording evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held the accused guilty for causing murder of Dinesh under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment, as mentioned above, hence this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment is passed against the factual aspects as emerged from the evidence and also against law, hence, it is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that only eye-witness to the incident in this case is Sunil Baghele, who is not reliable person. It is further pointed out that as per medical opinion recorded by the doctor, the possibility of suicide can not be ruled out. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant be set aside and the accused be acquitted of the offence of murder.