STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BHAGIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been presented against the original order of acquittal rendered on 11/12/1991 by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 175 /91 2. The factual matrix lies in narrow compass. The deceased Panubai was the wife of the respondent. On 24-5-1991, the respondent took the deceased to her parental home on a cycle.Near Village Badoli, the deceased fell down from the cycle as a result of which the respondent assaulted her. The respondent, thereafter, fled away from the spot. On receiving the intimation of this incident. Bherusingh (PW 1), the son-in-law of the deceased came on the spot and brought the injured Panubai in a bullack-cart to his home. The next day, a report was made by this victim of this assault marked in this case as Ex. P/ 6. She was sent to the hospital from the Police Station thereafter. At night of the same day. She succumbed to the injures. The autopsy was conducted by PW 4 Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh whose report is Ex. P/ 2. The spot map Ex. P/10 was prepared. The weapon of assault was seized. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing other formalities, the challan was filed in the Court. The case was, thereafter committed for trial. The Sessions Court framed the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code to which the respondent pleaded not guilty. In answer to question put under Section 313 of the Criminal P. C., the respondent took the plea that Panubai sustained injuries as a result of fall from the cycle. Bherusingh armed with a FARSI had come to the spot to beat the respondent as a result of which, he ran away from the spot. He pleaded that he was implicated in this case due to pre-existing enmity with Bherusingh (PW 1). On evaluation of evidence, the trial Court did not find the charge proved and thus, acquitted the respondent.

(2.) Aggrieved by this verdict, the State Government has filed this appeal after obtaining the requisite leave from this Court.

(3.) We have heard Shri S. S. Swami, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and Lokesh Bhatnagar as Amicus curae for the respondent. The respondent was also produced from the Jail under proper custody. He too was heard.