LAHNU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the appellant, it has been mainly submitted that, in the F.I.R., the name of the assailant has not been mentioned - - although the complainant Harabai, who had lodged the report, had admitted that she knew the assailant. It was further submitted that the offence against the appellant was not fully proved, and that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case.

(2.) HARABAI (P.W. 2) has clearly stated that she knew Neerabai alias Nirmalabai and that she was living in her house on rent along with her husband and child. From the version of Harabai, it is clear that, at about 11.00 A.M. in the day time, she had heard the cries of Neerabai and also the cries of her daughter Neetu and, then, she had gone to the house of Neerabai, and she saw that the accused Lahnu was sitting on the chest of Neerabai and he was inflicting knife blows on her stomach. From the version of Harabai, it is clear that, at the time of lodging the report, she did not know the name of this accused and, so, she did not name him in the report. However, from the version of Harabai, it is clear that she knew the accused from before although she did not knew his name.

(3.) THE conviction of the appellant Lahnu alias Raju is maintained, hut the sentence of R.I. for eight years, awarded by the trial Court, is reduced to R.I. for six years. Appeal partly allowed.