MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the accused/appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') have called in question the sustainability of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-2-92 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 149/91 whereby the learned Trial Judge has found the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment of life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for three years on the second score with a stipulation that both sentences would be concurrent.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that one month prior to 5-4-1991 the deceased, Bhagirath, after returning from a nearby jungle was sitting beneath a mango tree and, as alleged, the accused persons returned from the forest and the accused, Kamal Singh with an axe and accused-Mangilal with a stone inflicted injuries on the deceased, as a consequence of which he breathed his last on the spot. As the prosecution story proceeds, both the accused buried the dead-body of the deceased underneath a 'kurranch' tree. On the date of occurrence the witness, namely, Devkaran (P. W. 1), the grand son of the deceased and Mangilal, the son of the accused, had seen the occurrence, but being threatened by the accused persons he did not inform anyone about the occurrence for a period of one month. After expiry of one month when a roving search was made to find out the whereabouts of the deceased/bhagirath, on being questioned by Balwan Singh (P. W. 4), Devkaran narrated the entire incident. Balwan Singh apprised his father, Siddhu, who enquired into the mystery of the murder and it got unfolded. Information was given to the police with regard to the missing of Bhagirath and thereafter the police arrived near the 'karranj' tree and brought out the skeleton of the dead-body and seized it. The investigating agency after completing all other formalities placed the charge-sheet before the Competent Court, which in turn committed the matter to the Court of Session and eventually the matter was tried by the learned Trial Judge.

(3.) THE accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.