KALUSINGH CHANDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convict -appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28 -8 -1991 rendered by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No. 56/90 whereby they were held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ - each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) ADUMBERATED in brief the prosecution case at the trial was that on 29 -9 -1989, Shersingh (PW 3) had gone out for latrine at about 6.00 A.M. when he was near the KHALA the appellants Bhagwansingh, Tufan Singh and Kalusingh all sons of Chander Singh armed with stick, axe and GETI (Shovel) assaulting the deceased Terusingh alias Tejsingh. PW 3 informed his elder brother Rajendra Singh (PW 1) who immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. The injured Terusingh alias Tejsingh was put in a tractor and taken to the hospital at Dewas for the purpose of treatment, but he succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital. The incident occurred due to trivial dispute of cutting the tree of Palmyrapalm. The report of the incident was lodged by Rejendra Singh at the Police Chowki, Tonk Kala which o is marked in this case as Ex. P/l on the basis of which, a crime was registered vide Ex. P/23 at Police Station Tonk Khurd. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Yogesh Shankar (PW 2). The post mortem report is Ex. P/3. The weapons of assault were seized from the appellants pursuant to the information and submitted along with certain other articles for chemical examination. The report of Chemical Examiner is Ex. P/19 and the report of the Serologist is Ex. P/24. The spot maps Ex. P/2 and P/l 7 were prepared. After completion of investigation the charge -sheet was filed against the appellants. They were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty. On trial, they were convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) SHRI Saxena directed scathing attack against the prosecution evidence and criticised the impugned judgment. He submitted that the trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the unreliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses (PW 3 and PW 5). He particularly criticised the late interrogation of the principal witness -Ramkunwar Bai (PW 5). Her testimony, urged the counsel, was unsafe to be acted upon. Similarly, he argued that Sher Singh (PW 3) was also a child -witness and as such, it was hazardous to sustain the conviction on his testimony. It also suffered from various infirmities. On these contentions, he submitted that the appellants deserve to be exculpated. On the other hand, Shri Nigam, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the conclusion reached by the Trial Court was on firm foundation and was not vitiated in any manner. Proceeding further, he stated that the delay in interrogation was of no consequence when the name of PW 5 Ramkunwar Bai was included in the promptly lodged First Information Report (Ex. P/l). On these grounds, he urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.