JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine. THE name of the appellant is Jai Singh, S/o Kanhaiyalal, and the PW?1 is also Jai Singh, S/o Ranjeet Singh, therefore the appellant is hereinafter referred to as "accused". THE incident allegedly took place on 24?8?1992 at about 10 a.m.

(2.) THERE is no direct evidence. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, which comprises of (i) an extra?judicial confession of accused alleged to have been made to PW?1, (ii) the deceased having been last seen in the company of accused by PW?2, (iii) the motive, alleged to be a property dispute between deceased and the father of the 2 accused, and (iv) the recovery of the weapon of assault namely a lathi at the pointing out of the accused.

(3.) THE suggestion of the defence in the cross examination appears to be that deliberations started after dead body was discovered on 27th August, 1992. THE name of the assailant was not known. On the basis of the suspicion due to previous enmity the accused was named in the belated FIR, and two witnesses namely PW?1 and PW?2 were set up, with PW?1 claiming an extrajudicial confession by the accused and PW?2 claiming to have last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. PW?2 is admittedly related to the deceased. PW?1 is alleged to be pocket witness of the police as appears from the suggestion made in the cross examination of PW?1 that he was involved in undesirable activities and was an informer of the police. Although these suggestions have been denied by the PW?1, but the defence has produced the uncle of PW?1, namely Girdharilal as DW?3 who has testified about the undesirable activities and closeness of PW?1 to the police in his capacity as Police informer. We do not find anything in the cross examination of the DW?3 for doubting his evidence. On the contrary, the cross examination 4 suggests that this DW?3 had got the PW?1 released from the police on earlier occasions. THErefore, there is no logical reason for him falsely testifying against PW?1. In para 12 of the cross examination of PW?1, there is direct suggestion by the police not finding any witness in regard to the incident/murder and that PW?1 being set up as a false witness by the police after dead body was discovered.