SURESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant feels aggrieved by his conviction under section-3021.Re: and sentence of life imprisonment for the same, by judgment dated 25.7.1986 passed by Shri K.K. Verma, Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No. 65/1986 and challenges legal validity thereof in this appeal filed u/s. 374 (2) Cr. P.C.

(2.) The appellant is alleged to have caused murder of Inderchand by thrusting a knife into his stomach on 5.2.1986 at about 11.30 P.M. at Balaghat, as a result of which he died at the hospital at about 1.50 hours of 6.2.1986. Prosecution alleges that Dulichand (P.W.4) was sleeping in his house and woke up by hearing the voice of Imkalabai, his niece, who was sleeping on the Parchhi and saw the appellant running away. The witness Dulichand chased him shouting Pakro Pakro.The deceased Inderchand, who was coming from opposite direction, tried to apprehend the appellant. The appellant in that process, thrust a knife on the stomach of Inderchand and caused the death. The deceased, while in the hospital, gave his dying declaration, as per Ex. P/13 and stated that he could not see the person stabbing him and could also not see as to what weapon was used for the purpose. The appellant was thereafter arrested and put on trial for offence, as aforesaid. Appellant's defence was that he was not involved and had been unnecessarily put on trial. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on evidence of Dulichand (P.W.4), held that the appellant was properly identified by Dulichand at the time of incident. The learned Judge further held that identification had taken place subsequently and the appellant had been properly identified therein. That is how the appellant was held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the incident had taken place at about 11.30 P.M. in the month of February, when there was no light and hence the question of proper identification of the appellant is of paramount importance. Relying on dying declaration (Ex. P/13), the learned Counsel urged that if there was sufficient light, there was no reason why the deceased would not have identified the appellant Evidence of Dulichand in this regards said to be wholly unreliable. It is criticised on the ground that though Dulichand admits that he knew the appetents from before, he had not disclosed the appellantTs name or identity without ant delay and not even in his case diary statement. As regards identification parade, it is said that the same is of no value, in view of the statement of Dulichand that he had seen the appellant in the Police Station. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has, however, supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that evidence of Dulichand (P.W.4) and Vasudeo (P.W.5), fully establishes the appellants identity. It is also submitted that as regards test identification parade, the same had become necessary because the appellant was not known by name to any of the witnesses. The fact that he was picked up from a group of about 60 persons also establishes his identity beyond doubt. It is further submitted that there is no enmity alleged by the appellant with the witnesses and, therefore, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of their statement.