MURARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the accused/appellant from jail is directed against a Judgment dated 8th April 2006 in Sessions Trial No. 43/2005 recorded by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Gohad, district, Bhind (M.P.), holding thereby the accused/appellant Murari guilty alongwith another co -accused Pradeep for committing murder of Vasudev in furtherance of their common intention which is an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/ - . By the same judgment, the accused also stood convicted for causing simple hurt to injured Surendra alongwith co -accused Pradeep, which is an offence punishable under Section 323/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer one year's R.I. and further for offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of seven years with a fine of Rs. 100/ - for attempting to commit murder of Rajesh alongwith co -accused Pradeep. The trial of co -accused Pradeep was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Court since he was juvenile at the time of commission of the said offence. The facts, in brief, for the adjudication of this appeal are that on 12th October 2004 at about 10 a.m., accused Murari having armed with 12 bore double barrel gun and his son Pradeep with a Mouser gun went to the house of Shri Krishna, who was father -in -law of his daughter who stood married to Rajesh. Accused Murari expressed some doubt that his daughter was killed by administering the poison by her in -laws. On asking complainant Shri Krishna told him that his daughter is at Jabalpur and he may verify it. It is alleged that thereafter the accused opened fire from their firearms. Sons of Shri Krishna, namely, Vasudev and Rajesh with a view to save their lives fled away from the spot. Accused Murari and Pradeep chased them and during the process, both the accused fired at Vasudev which hit him causing serious injuries. During shifting of the injured Vasudev to the hospital in a Tractor trolley, he died. Complainant then got recorded a Dehati Nalish on the spot and thereafter F.I.R. was also lodged at his behest in the Police Station. Marg report was also registered. The police reached on the spot, prepared spot -map and effected seizures of the articles. The dead -body was sent to the hospital for postmortem. Injured Rajesh and Surendra were medically examined. Case -diary statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested and weapons of crime were recovered from their possession. After investigation, the charge -sheet was filed before the criminal Court. After trial, the trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as mentioned above, hence, the appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of accused/appellant contended that as per ocular and medical evidence, admittedly, the incident took place all of a sudden without premeditation and in the heat of passion and, therefore, the ingredients of offence 'Murder' punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. are lacking. It is contended that from the evidence on record, at the most, the appellant can be held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part -I of I.P.C. On the said premised submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal to that extent, the accused/appellant be acquitted of the charge of 'Murder' levelled against him. To support the arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Dayanand Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2008 SCW 2515), Manek Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2004) SCC (Criminal) 106, and Surendra Singh @ Bittu Vs. State of Uttaranchal : (2006) 9 SCC 531.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record with a law applicable to the case at hand.