ROD SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The VERDICT of guilt and INCARCERATION for life under S. 302, IPC, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biora) in Sessions Trial No.102/90 on 28th Dec. 1991, are under challenge in this appeal presented u/ S. 374 of Criminal Procedure Code. (for Short, 'the Code').

(2.) Tersely stated, facts at the trial were that Amarsingh (deceased) and Kalibai (his daughter) were tattooing the morter to brand their house on 5-6-90 at about 12-30 p.m. in village Aamlava. Between the deceased and appellant, there existed an enmity over tamarind tree and bada. The appellant came there armed with a ballam (Art A) and inflicted two injuries on the head of the deceased. The damnable incident was witnessed by the daughter Kalibai (P.W. 4) and the labourer Kesharbai (P.W.1). Certain persons gathered on the spot once the appellant had fled away. Amarsingh, the injured, was taken to the Police Station, Machalpur in a bullock cart by Kalibai accompanied by Ramlal (P.W. 5), Bhagawansingh (P.W. 8) and Madhusingh (P.W.2). On the way, when questioned, Amarsingh stated as dying declaration to Madhusingh (P.W. 2) and Ramlal (P.W. 5) that the appellant had assaulted him by ballam. Without any attempt at dawdling away, Kalibai lodged the First Information Report (Exh. P/2) at 3.00 P.M. From there, Amarsingh was rushed to the hospital, Machalpur for treatment. There he succumbed to the injuries at 3.35 p.m. on 5-6-90 itself. The FIR was recorded by ASI Dayachand Verma (P.W.14). The medical report is Ex.P. 11. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Y.P. Parikh (P.W.12), who gave Post Mortem Report Ex.P.13. The reports from Serologist and Chemical Examiner and Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar are respectively marked as Ex.P.15 and P.16. The spot maps drawn by thc Police and Patwari are exhibited as Ex.P. 3 and P. 6. The appellant was arrested on 12-6-90 vide arrest memo Ex.P.8. The weapon of offence, Ballam (Art. 1) was seized pursuant to information recorded in Ex. P. 9. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court. The case was committed for trial. The trial Court framed charge under S. 302, IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. The defence was one of total denial and false implication due to pre-existing enmity. On evaluation of evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded conviction and senttence as above.

(3.) Aggrieved, the appellant has impugned this judgment.