BALWAN SHA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Balwan Sha stands convicted for offence punishable under sections 307, IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the impugned judgment and order dated June 23,1995, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 104/94.. The prosecution case, in brief, is that appellant Balwan Sha is brother of Premlal. Premlal being issueless, kept complainant Umendra with him from the time when he was only one year old. Appellant Balwan Sha developed an apprehension that if complainant Umendra will continue to live with Premlal, he will give his entire property to Umendra and he will be deprived of any share in that property. Therefore, on 26.2.1994, at about 2 p.m. when Umendra was present in the house of Premlal, the appellant armed with an axe, reached there and dealt two axe blows on the neck, one on the left arm and one on the back of Umendra. When Hemkaran, Jangu, Bharosa and Dashrath reached at the place of occurrence, the appellant took to his heels.

(2.) UMENDRA was taken to the police station Amarwala, where he lodged Fust Information Report, Ex. P-6. Umendra was examined by Dr. Smt. Shabha Moitra (PW 1), who opined that out of the six wounds found on the complainant, five were caused by sharp edged weapon and one by hard and blunt object. She opined that in the absence of timely treatment, death of Umendra was possible due to the injuries. During investigation, an axe was seized at the instance of the appellant which was sent to FSL, Sagar for chemical examination. After investigation, a challan for offence punishable under section 307, IPC was filed against the appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307, IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. On the basis of the above prosecution case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case and accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence aforesaid, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge in his judgment has discussed the evidence in detail. The findings of the trial Court are based on cogent reasons. Looking to the totality of the evidence as discussed above, I am of the view that there is overwhleming evidence to bring home the guilt against the appellant. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to interefere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant for offence punishable under section 307, IPC. Looking to the fact that in the greed of getting the property, the appellant caused injuries on the vital parts of the body of complainant Umendra, the sentence of seven years' RI imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court cannot be said to be harsh or unjust. As such, the order of imprisonment passed by the trial Court against the appellant also does not call for any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above, are hereby maintained.