KANHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon, District Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 77/2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and 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.) No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since they are mentioned in paras 3 to 5 of the impugned judgment by the learned Trial Court. However, for ready reference, it would be condign to mention here on the point of some land dispute, all of a sudden the incident occurred in which the appellant uplifted the stone boulders and dealt three blows upon the deceased resulting into his death. The dead body was sent to Autopsy Surgeon who opined that on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he had died.

(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 allegations made in the chargesheet framed charge punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant which he denied and requested for the trial. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/23, the documents on record. The defence of the appellant is that indeed there was a demarcation proceeding commenced in which it was found that the deceased has encroached upon certain piece of agricultural land of the appellant. Thereafter, the demarcation took place and the excess land which was being possessed by the deceased, its possession was returned back to the appellant. However, on the date of incident the deceased came along with his Oxen to plough and was trying to cultivate the land which was already demarcated and whose possession was already given to the appellant and when the appellant tried to intervene and resisted from taking possession, the deceased did not agree and forcibly started cultivating the land. It is also the defence of the appellant that thereafter the deceased who came with bullocks, but they became violent as a result of which they ran over the deceased as a result of which he sustained injuries. In support of his defence, he examined Vishawanath (DW-1) and also examined himself as DW-2.