SIKANDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 3.7.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.44/1995, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-2) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 29.7.1994, at about 00.30 a.m., the deceased Prem Singh as well as the appellant were working in Ralson Factory, Mandideep, which was a tyre factory. Suddenly, the victim sustained an injury on his neck by sharp cutting weapon. Ramdhani Paswan, Shift Incharge rushed to the spot and with the help of Jung Bahadur and Bheem Singh, the deceased Prem Singh was sent to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal in a vehicle. However, the deceased Prem Singh had expired. A merg intimation, Ex.P/10 was recorded at Police Station Mandideep, Bhopal on the basis of information given by Radio Operator, Non-Urban Control, Bhopal. On the same day, at about 9.40 a.m., Ramdhani Paswan had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1 that a quarrel took place between the appellant and Prem Singh and therefore, the appellant gave a blow of rubber cutter on the neck of the deceased Prem Singh. The incident was seen by Kamta Prasad (P.W.2), Sohan Yadav, Trilokinath, Ramnath, Arjun Das Sharma and Mahendra Pandey. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Dr.C.S.Jain (P.W.5) did postmortem upon the body of the deceased Prem Singh and gave his report, Ex.P/9. A typography photo of the injury was given in the connected document, Ex.P/9-A. He found one stab wound on left side of his neck and one incised wound on right knee of the deceased. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned JMFC, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to the Sessions Judge, Raisen.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. He took a plea that the deceased sustained injuries while he was working on a machine and the appellant was falsely implicated by the office bearers of the factory, so that they could be saved from giving any compensation to the family of the deceased Prem Singh. However, no defence evidence was adduced.