KANNI ALIAS KANHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 112/2010 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and further imposing the fine with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(2.) In brief the case of prosecution is that on 5.10.2010 in the morning one dead body of Gudda alias Ravindra was seen in the Government Well by one Mohanlal who informed this fact to one Ramlu of the Village, who (Ramlu) informed about the dead body lying in the said Well to Village Kotwar Jugal Kishore. Thereafter all these three persons again arrived at the Well and found that one dead body was lying there. One trousers, shirt and chappals were also lying nearby the Well. On seeing the dead body, the Village Kotwar Jugal Kishore sent this information to the police station , Bichiya on the basis of which a Merg was registered. The dead body of the deceased was taken out from the Well and it was identified to be of Gudda alias Ravindra, son of Shri Lakkhu Lal, resident of Mandla. During the investigation it was found by the investigating agency that the appellant had killed the deceased and to hide his offence he threw the dead body into the government Well. The dead body was sent for postmortem and the Autopsy Surgeon found that deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by him.

(3.) After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session where the appellant was tried. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made in the chargesheet framed charges punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against the accused/appellant which he denied and requested for the trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/18, the documents on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and the same defence he setforth in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in support of his defence he did not choose to examine any witnesses.