BABULAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is directed against a Judgment dated 21 st January 2009 in Sessions Trial No. 210/07 by the First Additional Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.), convicting thereby the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment. He was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and in default to suffer one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the midnight of 7 th & 8 th May 2007, in village Mahuakheda, on the occasion of marriage of grandson of Ghasiram, a dinner was arranged. All the guests after consuming liquor were taking dinner. On the trifling point of picking up the used plates (pattals) of all the invitees including the appellant, the appellant became annoyed and abused to Prem Singh Dheemar. On the objection by Dayaram, he slept him. It is alleged that during scuffling, the accused/appellant inflicted grievous injury by a wooden plug of countrybedstead "Pati" to Premsingh, who fell down on the earth and died spontaneously. Next day, i.e., on 8 th May 2007, at about 7-15 a.m., an FIR and Marg Intimation Report were lodged at the Police Station Jamner District Guna. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal court. On committal, the Sessions trial was commenced. After trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above, hence this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is that the learned trial Judge has misread the evidence and also misconstrued the provisions of law and reached on totally unsupported conclusion by convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is submitted that the learned trial Judge on the basis of sole evidence of unsupported and highly interested witness, namely, Sagar Singh recorded the finding of guilt against the appellant. 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 in the present case. 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-II of I.P.C. On the said premised submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the accused/appellant be acquitted of the charge of 'Murder' levelled against him.