BADRI GOVIND BHILALA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 1-7-1994 rendered by the learned Second Addl, Sessions Judge, Barwani in Sessions Trial No. 183/92. thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under S. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer additional simple imprisonment for three" months.

(2.) The prosecution case giving rise to this appeal in short was that on 14-3-1992 in the noon at 10.30 p.m., deceased-Ramesh was standing on the road in front of his house in village Kusmari. At that time, the appellant-Badri S/o Govind Bhilala reached over there having an axe in his hand and dealt a blowby the axe on the neck of the deceased on his back side". The deceased-Ramesh fell down on the ground. Thereafter again, appellant dealt three/four axe blows on various parts of his body. The deceased died instantaneously on the spot. The incident was witnessed by P.W. 7 Babulal S/o Mangya who came to the house of the father of deceased i.e. P.W. 5 Lalu and gave information about the incident that the deceased was being assaulted by the appellant. This information was given by him to P.W. 13Basubai, sister of the deceased who, thereafter raised alarm and called her father P.W. 5 Lalu. P.W. 5 Lalu immediately went to the Police Station, and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P/3. After inquest, the dead body of Ramesh was sent for post-mortem examination and autopsy was conducted by P.W. 12 Dr. B. B. Purohit, Ex. P/9 is the post-mortem report. This doctor found as many as four incised wounds on the body of the deceased and according to him, the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries including the facial and neck injuries. The appellant was arrested and an axe was seized at his instance. Memo is Ex. P/14 and the seizure memo of axe is Ex. P/15. Though the axe was sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but its report has not been tendered in evidence nor was exhibited. Even otherwise, in this report, there is no presence of human blood. According to the prosecution, the deceased-Ramesh had committed rape on the sister-in-law of the appellant.

(3.) After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. Learned trial Court framed the charges which were denied by the appellant and according to him, he was falsely implicated. Thereafter, he was put to trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to establish its case. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After trial; the learned trial Court finding the appellant guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.