HARINATH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 8-2-95 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 220/93, passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, vidisha.

(2.) AS per prosecution story, Bhagwati (P. W. 8) is the wife of the appellant and daughter of deceased Chandrabhan. 'natra' of the appellant took place with Bhagwati three-four months before the date of incident. After 'natra' they lived together at Village Megra Amarpur and thereafter they shifted to village Kanpur Karod under Police Station, Salamatpur. On 31-8-93 appellant along with his wife Bhagwati came to see ailing deceased Chandrabhan, who was the father of Bhagwati and father-in-law of appellant and they stayed there in the night. Next day, i. e. , on 1-9-93, in the morning at about 9 o'clock appellant told his father-in-law Chandrabhan that he wants to go back along with his wife bhagwati. Chandrabhan in reply told him that he is not feeling well, he should leave his daughter for two-three days and on recovery he himself will send his daughter to him. Appellant was not inclined to leave his wife Bhagwati and was insisting that he will take her back. The villagers also came to pursuade him. In the meantime his brother-in-law Ramesh also went towards the forest for grazing the goats and appellant also went in the village. After three-four hours in the noon appellant again came with a spear in his hand. At that time his wife bhagwati along with other ladies like Geeta wife of Ramesh, Tulsibai and bhariabai, who were neighbourers, were sitting under a tree. The appellant tried to assault his wife. She cried, called his father to come and save her. Appellant also asked her wife whether she wants to accompany him or not. In the meantime, father-in-law Chandrabhan came on spot and stopped the appellant killing his daughter, whereupon appellant asked his father-in-law Chandrabhan that "he be away otherwise he will kill him". When Chandrabhan remained there, the appellant gave one spear blow to him, who caused injuries in his chest and also towards the armpit. Chandrabhan fell down and started bleeding. He could not speak and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. When the appellant tried to flee away from the spot, Bhagwati gave one lathi blow in the head of appellant and two-three other blows on the other parts of his body. Bhagwati and Ramesh both went at Berkhedi Chouraha and gave information to Police station, Salamatpur about the incident, which was recorded in the Rojnamcha and thereafter police came on spot. 'dehati Nalishi' was recorded. 'lash panchnama' and spot map were prepared, the spear was removed from the body of the deceased and seized, plain and blood-stained soil was also seized. The body was referred for post-mortem and the matter was investigated. After investigation charge-sheet was filed.

(3.) AT the trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and 5 witnesses were examined in defence. Appellant abjured his guilt and his defence was that when he was insisting for taking back his wife, his father-in-law, brother-in-law and other persons beat him. He became unconscious and he does not know how Chandrabhan died and who caused injuries to him. In short, the defence was that the appellant has not caused any injury to Chandrabhan and he has been implicated falsely. Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 300-Thirdly, IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against which he has filed this appeal.