SHUBHKARAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 14-10-1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 44/88, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. The Trial Court has however, acquitted the co-accused persons, namely, Chotelal, Pannalal and Chitanand.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 19-1-1988, at about 1. 30 p. m. one Bhagwat Prasad while going towards Village Panikabandha along with Vijay Singh (P. W. 2), Gopal and Rama heard the sound of cutting of a tree from forest near Village Titaria. Bhagwat Prasad was a Forest Guard. When he went to the place from where the sound was coming, he saw appellant Shubhkaran and Chitanand cutting a tree by their axes. Bhagwat Prasad asked them not to cut the tree and insisted for handing over their axes to him. Both of them after initial protest handed over their axes to Bhagwat Prasad. Vijay Singh (P. W. 2) held the axe of Shubhkaran. Thereafter, all of them left the place and as they reached Village Titaria, Shubhkaran suddenly snatched the axe from Vijay Singh (P. W. 2 ). At that time Dadna, Chotelal and Pannalal also reached that place. Bhagwat Prasad demanded the axe from Shubhkaran and stated that he would seize the wood also. At that juncture Shubhkaran suddenly inflicted a blow from the blunt side of the axe on the forehead of Bhagwat Prasad as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. He died on the way while being carried to the hospital. Vijay Kumar lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1) at Police Station, Jiyavan. Dr. R. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 5) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Bhagwat Prasad. He in his report (Ex. P-6) gave opinion that Bhagwat Prasad died due to solitary forehead injury. After investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and other acquitted co-accused, persons, namely, Chotelal, Pannalal and Chitanand.

(3.) THE conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of Vijay Singh (P. W. 2 ). Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the Trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of solitary eye-witnesses. In the alternative, he has argued that the appellant should not have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC as only an offence under Section 304, Part II was made out against him, even as per the allegations of the prosecution.