RADHESHYAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court, dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22nd March, 1996 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 150/93 by Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for life imprisonment and RI for 5 years respectively.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case giving rise to this appeal, is that P. W. 1 Motilal, on 14th June, 1993, lodged missing report of his younger brother named Narmada Prasad aged 35 years in Police Station, Kannod. This report was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 650, dated 14-6-1993 at 12 noon. As per this report, before 16-17 days, brother of Motilal had left his house for going to Banapur and Bersia Bhopal. He did not return back to his house, therefore, complainant Motilal searched him in Village Banapur and Bersia Bhopal but failed to trace him out. He lodged report of Gumshudgi. On 10th August, 1993, present appellant and co-accused Kanga (died during the course of trial) were apprehended in the case of theft and during the course of interrogation, it is stated that both the appellants had admitted about commission of murder of Narmada Prasad and had hidden the dead body of Narmada Prasad in the rivulet situated in Sannod Forest. This information was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exs. P-10 and P-l 1, as disclosure statements of appellant and co-accused Kanga in presence of P. W. 2 Chhotelal and Panch witness Prahlad (not examined ). The dead body was recovered from the forest. Recovery memo is Ex. P-22. Present appellant also made a disclosure statement Ex. P-13 before P. W. 3 Manohar Lal and Kailash (not examined) and in pursuance thereof RIN PUSTIKA and PURSE were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. P-8. The dead body was identified by (P. W. 4) Manohar s/o Champalal brother of the deceased on the basis of cloths, Pajama and shoes of the deceased. Its test identification memo is Ex. P-l. Inquest report is Ex. P-l4. Skeleton was sent for post mortem examination vide Ex. P-16. The post mortem of the dead body was performed by P. W. 8 Dr. Maheshwari, who did not give any definite opinion about cause of death and referred for further examination and opinion to the Director Medico Legal Institute, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. The Forensic Science Laboratory report is Ex. P-17 and is proved by P. W. 9 Dr. D. S. Badkur. According to this witness, bones were of human origin, the bones were of male of aged 55 years 5 years meaning thereby deceased could be aged about 50 to 60 years and the cause of death was not known because no bony injuries were present, duration of death was also not ascertained. After registration of crime and recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Kanga under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. The appellant has pleaded innocence. According to him, he was involved in the case on suspicion. Therefore, he was put on trial. Learned Trial Court, after examination of the prosecution witnesses relying on the evidence of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant and RIN PUSTIKA and PURSE recovered from the appellant belonged to the deceased Narmada Prasad, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if complete prosecution case is accepted offence punishable under Section 302, IPC is not made out against the appellant because identity of the deceased and homicidal death have not been proved by the prosecution. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act about discovery of the dead body and RIN PUSTIKA and PURSE is also not worth placing reliance.