CHAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 5-34980, at around 1. 30p. m. Kamar Bailodged a F. I. R, stating that her husband Mannulal had been gravely injured on being assaulted by the appellant by a Ballam, on his chest, at 1 LOO a. m. that day. She had left the injured at home after he was given first aid by Compounder Ram Prasad. The occurrence had taken place when Mannulal had finished his meals and was washing his hands. She had shouted as she witnessed the occurrence when deceased's brother Diwan Singh as also others came to the scene, seeing whom, the appellant fled away. Indeed, Diwan Singh accompanied the informant to Police Station and this fact finds place in the F. I. R. She also stated that the appellant was related to her previous husband Kaptan Singh and he could not reconcile to her living with the deceased as his wife, so much so that he had taken out warrant for her arrest and had brought Police to deceased's village to have her

(2.) IN the course of investigation, the Police seized the Ballam, pursuant to appellant's statement under Section 27, Evidence Act (Ex. P/5 ). As the deceased was found dead when the I. O. reached the place of occurrence accompanying the informant, he prepared the spot-map (Ex. P/2) and also held inquest over the dead-body, which he sent for autopsy. Witnesses were also examined and a search was made for the accused in his village, but he was found absconding. Until 11-9-1980, he was at large and on that day, he surrendered in Court. On 30-9-1980, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. on which his trial proceeded in the Court of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna.

(3.) AT trial, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, of whom P. Ws. 8 and 12 were Investigating Officers, while the Autopsy Surgeon was examined as P. W. 7. to prove the charge to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. However, he did not examine any witness. The trial Court believed the eye-witness, deceased's wife Kamar bai (P. W. 1) whose testimony, it found supported not only by other witnesses, namely p. Ws. 2 to 6, but also by important circumstances proved in the case. Accepting surgeons opinion that the injury, which he found on deceased's person, was ante mortem and homicidal and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the charge under section 302. I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.