NARULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-1 -2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manasa in S. T. No. 210/2001, by which the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with defaulting clause of imprisonment of one month R. I,

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 27-7-2001 Sitaram (P. W. 6), the Village Chowkidar of Bhaktuni, lodged a report in Kanjada Police outpost that when he was present in his house, Ratanlal s/o Bhanwarlal resident of same village came to his house and informed him, that his daughter Santoshibai aged seven years was sleeping in the last night outside the house. In the morning he thought that she might be playing in the village, thereafter he received information that dead body of his daughter is lying in the field of appellant Narulal. He asked Sitaram to accompany him to see the dead body. Both proceeded and reached in the field of appellant Narulal and found that dead body of Santoshibai was lying on the embankment of the field. Ratanlal took the dead body to his house and sent Sitaram to lodge the report. On the basis of the report lodged by chowkidar in police outpost Kanjada Merg was registered on number 0/3/2001. The merg report was produced in Police Station, Manasa on the same day by Constable Kailash Kumre on that basis merg No. 24/2001 as per provision under Section 174 of the Cr. PC was registered and ASI C. L. Haryale reached on the spot for merg enquiry. He prepared spot map (Ex. P-4) and also inquest of the dead body Ex. 6-A and sent the dead body of post-mortem. Post-mortem was performed by the panel of two Doctors. Post-mortem Report is Ex. P-6. ASI Haryale also recorded the statement of witnesses in merg enquiry and found that appellant took, the deceased Santoshibai in the night and committed her murder. After merg enquiry FIR vide No. 261/2001 under Sections 302, 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC was registered and matter was investigated. From the spot pieces of plastic bangles, one pair plastic sandel were seized through seizure memo (Ex. P-10) and Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Sitaram, Ramesh and Ratanlal as well as arrested the appellant Narulal. On disclosure statement made by appellant Narulal in presence of witnesses manoj Kumar and Ramchandra vide Ex. P-8, at the instance of the appellant through seizure memo (Ex. P-9), a stone was said to have been seized. The appellant was medically examined. His report is Ex. P-3. After completion of the investigation, appellant was charge sheeted for the above mentioned offences.

(3.) THE appellant denied the charges. His defence was that he has been falsely implicated because of enmity. He did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution witnesses and hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.