RAMANAND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 preferred by the accused/appellant is directed against a Judgment dated 26 th February 2002 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 261/99 by the First Additional Sessions Judge Bhind (M.P.), convicting thereby the appellant for causing murder of Pappu s/o Manni Singh, a resident of Charghar Ka Pura, Police Station Umari, district Bhind, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of one year.

(2.) Briefly narrated the prosecution case is that on 8 th June 1998 at about 8 p.m., in the evening, complainant Manni Singh accompanied with his son Pappu @ Awadesh (deceased) and cousin brother Harpal Singh was going from their house to Kaharan Ka Pura to engage labour on hire. The complainant was ahead to his son and cousin brother. When these persons crossed the path of the residence and reached at some distance at Hawaldar Singh Ka Pura, they found standing accused Ramanand with 12 bore double barrel gun and his father Brijraj Singh with 12 bore single barrel gun. By the side of these accused, mother of Ramanand, named Shantibai was present. When these persons were seen coming to their side, mother of accused Shantibai exhorted his son to kill them. In response, accused Ramanand fired a shot, which hit the son of complainant and he fell down. Father of accused Ramanand also tried to fire, but by this time, the complainant party left the place. On their call for help, witnesses Harpal, Janved and Raghuveer from village rushed to the spot. They shifted the injured in the Hospital. After examining by the doctor who was available on casual duty, the injured was declared dead. On next day in the morning, the complainant lodged Dehati Nalishi 'a report' F.I.R. in the City Kotwali Bhind. The motive behind the incident was that accused Brijraj sold some trees of grass land of the village which incident was reported by one Man Singh against the accused to the police. It is stated that said Man Singh used to sit in the house of complainant due to which the accused party was having enmity with complainant Manni Singh, father of deceased. Accordingly, a Marg was registered on the report of the doctor. The Marg report was inquired into by Sub Inspector Sanjeev Nayan Sharma (PW-5) of the Police Station City Kotwali Bhind. Thereafter, both Marg as well as Dehati Nalishi were transferred to the Police Station Umari. The F.I.R. (Ex.P/13) was lodged on Dehati Nalish and Crime No. 78/1998 was also registered against the accused. The investigation was set into motion. The postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Pappu. The case-diary statements were recorded. The accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the criminal court having jurisdiction. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Judge after recording the evidence and hearing the prosecution as well as accused came to record acquittal of co-accused Shantibai and Brijraj Singh while the present accused-appellant Ramanand was convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., hence this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Judge is against the peculiar facts, evidence of the case and the law, hence, same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that from statements of the prosecution witnesses two contrary views, firstly that accused Ramanand caused death of deceased Pappu by causing gunshot injuries on his body and another view that dead body of Pappu was lying in the forest of the village and some unknown person killed him are founded on revelation. Thus, the learned trial Judge has erred to follow the settled propositions of law that if two views appear from the prosecution evidence, then the order of acquittal must be passed. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted and the convicted accused be acquitted of the charge of murder. Further submission of the learned counsel is that the prosecution examined only interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined to prove the guilt against the accusedappellant. Therefore, in this manner also, the judgment of conviction is not sustainable in law. Ultimately, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the accused be acquitted of the charge.