MUNNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Chhaterpur vide his judgment dated 21.7.1980 passed in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 1980 convicted accused Munna Singh under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal by the accused is directed against his above said conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, was as follows: The incident took place on the night of 1.11.1979 in village Kusuma of Chhatarpur district. About 10-15 villagers were gambling with the help of playing cards near a well called Bhadhauwa Kua in the village. Accused Munna Singh and deceased Waheed were amongst those who were standing nearby and watching the game. Accused Munna Singh was having a lathi to which a farsa was attached. All of a sudden, he made an assault on the deceased with the above said weapon. On seeing this, all those who were gambling or were watching the game fled away from there. These included P.W. 2 Devideen, P.W. 4 Har Prasad, P.W. 5 Bhuwania and P.W. 8 Barelal. On the next day i.e. 2.11.1979, in the morning, P.W. 10 Umashankar a boy aged about 10 years was Waheed lying dead near the well with cut wounds over his body. He went and told P.W. 9 Guddi, younger sister of Waheed, about what he had seen. P.W. 9 Guddi went to P. W. 1 Alamkhan who was a cousin of the deceased and informed him about the dead body of Waheed lying near the welt. On hearing this, P.W. 1 Alam Khan rushed to the well. He too saw the dead body of Waheed lying there with cut wounds over it. When he was returning to his house from the well, he met P.W. 2 Devideen to the way. P.W. 2 Divideen told him that it was accused Munna Singh who had committed the murder of his brother. P.W. 1 Alam Khan then went to police station Maharajpur which was situated at a distance of about 11/2 kms. from the village and lodged first information report (Ex. P-I) at 7.15 A.M.

(3.) There were certain remarkable features of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution in the case. All the so-called eye-witnesses to the incident, namely P.W. 2 Devideen, P.W. 4 Har Prasad, P.W. 5 Bhuwania and P.W. 8 Barelal, were meaningfully silent on the point as to what had led to the assault in question made on the deceased. All of them were stated to have consumed liquor that had been served to them by P.W. 5 Bhuwania before the gambling began. They were so delightfully vague even regarding the one blow said to have been heard or seen by them that the inference was irritable that they were trying to suppressing truth as regards not only the genesis of the incident but also the manner in which the same occurred.