KEDAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the accused/ appellant having being aggrieved by a judgment dated 2 nd June 2005 of conviction and sentence delivered in Sessions Trial No. 28/2005 by the Special Sessions Judge Shivpuri, convicting the accused for commission of murder of Smt. Vaijanti, wife of Kallu, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to serve out additional six months' simple imprisonment. However, by the same verdict, the accused stood acquitted of the charge framed for committing an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, (for brevity "the Act").

(2.) The facts, in short, just for the decision of the case are that on 28 th October, 2004 at around 12-05 p.m., complainant Vaijanti, a resident of village Rajapur accompanied with his son Ram Singh (PW-6) reported the incident to the police that on the same day at around 11-30 a.m., she with other lady labourers, namely, Girija, Ginna, Sewabai, Prembai, who were engaged on daily wages, were loading the Murram (crumbling trapstones) from the quarry on the tractor-trolley of one Bhagwan Singh, at that moment, accused Kedar Lodhi also came there. During process of the work, he passed vulgar remarks at the complainant. As she resisted from making such remarks, the accused assaulted her by the iron-rod and thereby caused injuries on head,neck, and left shoulder. The incident was seen by the above lady labour-workers. Injured Smt. Vaijanti alongwith her son reached the police station Mayapur and lodged the FIR against the accused. On her report, the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. alongwith other Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, since the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste, was registered against the accused. The investigation was set into motion by a Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Pichhore. During the course of her referral to the Govt. Hospital Pichhore, she succumbed to injuries. So, the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was added. The accused was arrested and on his production, a weapon of crime was seized. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court, having jurisdiction. On committal, the Sessions trial commenced and after recording the evidence, the present accusedappellant was convicted and sentenced for the commission of the alleged offence, hence, this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the judgment under appeal is against the law and procedure and therefore same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution examined eyewitnesses, namely, Girijabai (PW-1) Smt. Sevabai (PW-2) Prembai (PW-3), Ginnabai (PW-4) Munshi (PW-5), Keval (PW-6) Dinanath Pal (PW-7), Dr.P.K. Khare (PW-8), Barelal (PW-9) and Vikrant Murav (PW-10), SDO (Police) Pichhore. It is submitted that the statements of above witnesses do not tally with the medical evidence and the time of death and the prosecution by the evidence of these witnesses could not be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Apart from above, all prosecution witnesses were having inimical terms with the accused-appellant and there is a considerable delay in recording the case-diary statements by the I.O. It is also submitted that the eye-witnesses were either related or interested witnesses. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in between ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence on the point of injuries on the body of injured. The prosecution, therefore, utterly failed to bring home charge against the accused/appellant. On the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed by the trial court.