RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 9/9/1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar District Satna in Special Case No.28/1997, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of IPC and sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he was to undergo for six months' RI in addition.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short, is that a Pandey Dhaba was constructed by its owner near the river Tamash which was 6 kms away from Maihar. On 13.1.1997 dhaba was closed and the complainant Jhalla (PW-1) and his brother-in-law Auseri were given a duty to look after that dhaba. In the night at 12 O'clock few persons came to the dhaba and pushed the door of the room where the complainant and his brother-in-law were sleeping. They took out the complainant and his brother-in-law Auseri from the room and assaulted them by sticks. The appellant Ram Niwas and other co-accused persons were the assailants and they were accompanied by 3-4 unknown persons also. The complainant requested that they were simply the labours in the dhaba and they were not connected with the activity of the dhaba, but the culprits continued to assault. Ultimately the complainant and his brother-in-law Auseri were confined in a room and room was locked. After sometime Ramhet (PW-15) came to the dhaba and he called the complainant. The complainant informed him that they were confined in the room, and therefore he requested to open the door. Ramhet went to the village and police. Thereafter with the help of witnesses Ramdeen, Ramdayal etc. the door was opened and it was found that Auseri succumbed to the injuries. The complainant Jhalla had lodged a Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-23 at the spot. He also informed that 10-15 days prior to the present incident, appellant Ram Niwas and other co-accused persons had assaulted the owner of the dhaba, and therefore the owner of Pandey Dhaba went to Allahabad and thereafter dhaba was closed.

(3.) THE appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea but he has stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. No defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.