NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 19, 1980 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1978. By the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Criminal appeal No. 563 of 1978 preferred by the appellant Narayan Singh against his conviction under S. 302, IPC and sentence for imprisonment of life imposed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1975.

(2.) THE Short fact of the case of the prosecution is that on plot No.8 at Jabaran Colony, Indore, a machine for preparing kali dar kayala was fixed and the said plot was leased out by the deceased, Balkishan to the accused on a monthly rent\ of Rs. 200/ -. The deceased Balkishan had already stored coal -pieces on the said plot worth about Rs. 700/ - and the accused promised that he would pay Rs. 700/towards the cost of the said pieces of coal. That apart, coal -pieces worth Rs. 1,500/ - were also stored on the said plot after the delivery of the machine on account of certain past transaction and the accused also promised that he would pay Rs. 700/ - and also Rs. 1,500/ - towards the cost of the coal -pieces by April 13,1978. When the deceased Balkishan demanded the amount from the accused the accused told him that he would pay the said amount on the 16th. Again when on April 16, 1978, the brother of the deceased went to recover the said amount from the accused, he said that he would pay the amount in the evening. In the evening, when the deceased went to the accused, the accused was not available. Thereafter, on 17th morning, there was a talk between the accused and the deceased on plot No.8 and the accused told the deceased that he would vacate the plot but he did not pay his dues to the deceased. The accused told the deceased that the would talk to his father to ascertain what amount should be paid. The accused took the deceased to his plot No. 216 situated at Pulshikar Colony, Indore. At the said plotsome talk took place between the deceased and the father of the accused. In the meantime, PW 1 Mahendra Singh also came there. When Mahendra Singh came, the accused was not present but shortly thereafter the accused came and the accused told Balkishan that he had unnecessarily spoiled his mood and thereafter he took out a knife from the pocket of his pant and dealt 4 -5 blows on the deceased Balkishan. Balkishan sustained injuries on his chest, stomach and other vital parts of the body' and died on the spot. The only eye -witness of the occurrence was Mahendra Singh. He stated that although he had seen the accused taking out knife but being completely perplexed he moved his head and ultimately did not see the actual stabbing but he found the deceased lying in injured condition and he ran away and the accused also ran away. He thereafter informed the brother of the accused about the said incident. Accepting the evidence of the said eye -witness, the trial Court convicted the accused for the murder of the deceased and the High Court has also affirmed the said conviction and sentence.

(3.) WE have considered the judgments of the Courts below and depositions given in the case. It may be indicated that the High Court has rightly pointed out that normally the witness Mahendra Singh should have reported the matter to the family of the deceased but he was a young man of 20 years at that time and he became so perplexed by the aforesaid incident that he behaved in an unusual manner. But simply on that account, his testimony need not' he discarded. We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the Courts below. It appears to us that Mahendra's evidence is convincing and deserves credence. In the facts and circumst.1nces of the case, we, therefore, do not think that any interference is, called for. The appeal is dismissed.