KEMTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been preferred by accused/appellant against his impugned conviction and sentence recorded in Sessions Trial No. 381/1998 vide judgment dated 30/7/99 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge Guna convicting the accused/appellant for commission of murder of Dhan Singh, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2500.00, in default of payment of which to serve four months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated the prosecution case is that on 18th October 1998 at about 4 p.m., in front of the house of complainant Ram Singh, a quarrel took place between accused appellant Kemta and deceased Dhan Singh, who happened to be father-in-law of the complainant. So, complainant's mother-in-law Bhagdibai and his wife came out of the house and tried to pacify the matter but accused being enraged assaulted at Dhan Singh with a knife, resultantly he died on the spot, due to injury received on his neck. FIR (Ex.D/1) and Marg Report (Ex.P/4) was written on an oral report of the complainant Ram Singh. Marg report was inquired into and on FIR, the investigation was set in motion. Postmortem was conducted on the body of Dhan Singh. Case diary statements of the witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested and on his information the knife weapon of crime was seized. The seized knife and other articles were sent for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior. Report of Chemical Examiner was received. After inquiry and investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present accused. On committal to the court of sessions, trial commenced and after recording the evidence, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., hence this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.