GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 has been preferred by the accused/appellant having being aggrieved by a judgment dated 25th July 2000 delivered in S.T.No. 153/99 by the Additional Sessions Judge Lahar, district Bhind convicting the accused for causing death of Bachhu @ Parasram, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo three months' more sentence.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for the adjudication of the present case, as per prosecution's own case are that at about 1 p.m., Parwat, son of accused Gulab Singh went to the house of complainant and pelted a stone aiming at the son of the complainant, namely, Nehpal Singh, but it missed and hit inner wall of the house. When the complainant Bachhu @ Parasram informed of this act to the accused Gulab Singh he being enraged brought an Axe and inflicted an injury to Bachhu @ Parasram as a result of which Bachhu died on the spot. The accused then fled away with blood stained Axe from the spot. Complainant Mani, wife of deceased lodged the F.I.R. at police station, Daboh, district Bhind, which was 14 k.m. away from the place of incident. On her report, the investigation was set into motion. After FIR was lodged, the Investigating Officer on the day of incident conducted the investigation and prepared spot-map vide Ex.P/1, seized blood stained and simple soil vide seizure memo (Ex.P/4), prepared memo of dead body vide Ex.P/3 and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem to the Community Health Centre on that day of incident. Postmortem was done on the same day. The case-diary statements of the witnesses were recorded on different dates. The accused was arrested and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court, having jurisdiction. On committal, the Sessions trial commenced and after recording the evidence, the present accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for commission of the alleged offence, hence this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for appellant is that the judgment under appeal is against the law and procedure and therefore same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that to prove the guilt against accused, the prosecution examined chance/eyewitnesses, namely, Mani (PW-6), the complainant, who is wife of deceased, Lallu (PW-1), brother-in-law of deceased, Dhakeli (PW-2), wife of elder brother of deceased (Bhabhi), Prabhu (PW-3), the village watchman, Birkhe (PW-4), the neighbour of deceased, Nehpal (PW-7) son of deceased, Munna (PW-8), cousin of deceased and Dr. S.K. Singh Niranjan (PW-9), who performed autopsy on the body of deceased. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the statements of above witnesses do not corroborate with each other and same contained so many contradictions/omissions. The depositions of ocular witnesses do not support the medical evidence. The prosecution did not produce the Investigating Officer before the trial court during investigation which also creates a grave suspicion in placing relied on the prosecution version. On the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellant may be acquitted of the charges framed by the trial court.