GHASITA KACHWAHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9.2.2009 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.135/2008 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FV>JUDGEMENT_400_LAWS(MPH)7_2014.html</FV> <RC>Nasir & another Vs. State of M. P., 2009 0 ILR(MP) 2078</RC><RCG>REFERRED</RCG> <RC>Earabhadrappa Vs. State of Karnatka, AIR 1983 SC 446</RC><RCG>REFERRED</RCG> <JT> <PARA> The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9.2.2009 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.135/2008 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FV>JUDGEMENT_400_LAWS(MPH)7_2014.html</FV>

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14.12.2007 complainant Ramgarib (PW-1) had lodged a missing report at Police Station Kundam that on 13.12.2007 at about 6:00 PM his grand-daughter Pooja was playing near his house and thereafter she was missing. On enquiry the dead body of the deceased-prosecutrix was found in a jungle near the village Jaitpuri. The dead body of the deceased-prosecutrix was sent for the postmortem. Dr. Sohanlal (PW-10) had performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased-prosecutrix and found that she had injuries on her private part. Her entire body was crushed, and therefore her death was homicidal. On investigation, the witnesses Mohanlal (PW-2) and Lakhanlal (PW-5) have stated that they saw the appellant when he was going towards cliff along with the deceased-prosecutrix. The appellant was arrested. He was also sent for his medical legal examination. The various articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after their seizure and report Ex.P-21 was received from the FSL. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Jabalpur and ultimately it was transferred to the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

(3.) The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he had enmity with the relatives of the complainant, and therefore the witnesses related to the complainant have falsely implicated him in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced.