KARANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29/8/2005 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Gohad, District Bhind (MP) in Sessions Trial No.172/2001, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment and they have further been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/ each with default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that deceased Hari Singh had been working in a "Bhandara" held on 17 01 2001 upto 9:00 O'clock in the night. He had been serving meals to the persons who came in the "Bhandara". At around 9:00 O'clock in the morning his beheaded dead body was found in the field of Sabdal Singh. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/7) was recorded at the spot and thereafter the police investigated the matter. The Investigating Officer called the sniffer dog and the sniffer dog identified a iron sword and a white coloured "Safi" in the house of co accused Badan Singh and the same were recovered on the basis of memorandum of co accused Badan Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P/12. The post mortem of dead body was conducted and thereafter the police arrested the present appellants. The trial Court framed the charges against the appellants under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence, found the charges proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and awarded the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law in holding the appellants guilty for the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the conviction of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of appellants. He further contended that seizure of 'sword' and 'Safi' from the house of co accused Badam Singh is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses of circumstantial evidence are not reliable witnesses. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the following judgments: