HARJI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned criminal appeal filed by appellant - Harji assailing the judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 36/2000, whereby the appellant who was sent for trial along with other accused persons, was asked to face trial under Sections 302/34, 294 and 506 of IPC, but he has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of RS. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.

(2.) APPELLANT - Harji was sent for trial along with Babu to face charges under Section 302/34 of IPC on the allegation that on 6th of October, 1999 at about 9.45 p.m., in Rekha Colony, Depalpura, he along with other accused persons caused death of Shantilal, the deceased by causing such injuries upon his person which caused his death or which were sufficient to cause his death. Rangji is the complainant in this case. In the complaint (Exh. P -1), which was registered soon after the incident, he informed the police that his elder son Laxman used to stay with Harji, Shantilal used to object Laxman to be taken along with Harji, Babu and Ramesh. On such objection being taken by him, besides abusing the complainant, appellant also caused injuries on the head of Shantilal by using an axe while Babu and Ramesh caught hold of him. At that time, Kalu, Mangliya and Harish came and tried to mediate. Thereafter, Shantilal was taken to hospital in a Thela. On the basis of the statement made by Rangji, the case was registered under Sections 294, 324 and 506 of IPC. Later on, Shantilal expired after 18 days, therefore, offence under Section 302/34 was also added. After the case was committed to sessions, Harji was charged for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC as also under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC, but later on while accused Babu and Ramesh, who were absconder, were sent for trial and acquitted, but the appellant - Harji has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. He has been acquitted of the other offences. The evidence against the appellant consists of statement made by complainant - Rangji, who has supported what he has stated in the FIR. During ' the course of investigation, police had recorded the statement of Rangji and other witnesses, who gathered at the spot including that of Mangliya, Kalu and Harish. They also recorded the statements of doctors who prepared MLC and conducted the post -mortem on the dead body of the deceased after his death.

(3.) ON the basis of the statement made by Dr. Anchal Kumar Silawat, the Trial Judge formed the following opinion : - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_466_MPHT5_20132.jpg</IMG>