JEETU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-9-1996 passed by the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in S. T. No. 500/1990, by which the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfurled before the Trial Court is that deceased Salim was having old enmity with appellant and acquitted co-accused Sonu. Some day prior to the date of incident appellant and acquitted co-accused persons abused the deceased and threatened him. On 9-8-1990, in the evening deceased was on his shop and his brother Karamat Khan (P. W. 11), after collecting money from creditors was returning back to his Banana shop situated on Patnipura Chouraha. At that juncture he saw that acquitted co-accused Mahendra, Rajendrasingh and Sonu @ Rajendrasingh were catching hold the hand and leg of the deceased and appellant Jitu @ Jitendra Singh was causing injury by knife. The incident was also witnessed by witnesses Rafiq, Chottu Teli, Aziz besides Karamat. When Karamat, the brother of the deceased tried to catch appellant Jitu, the accused persons fled away. Deceased was taken to M. Y. Hospital in injured condition. In the hospital he was declared dead because of injury sustained by him. Brother of the deceased Karamat Khan (P. W. 11) lodged the report (Ex. P-12) in the police station on the same day. The police prepared inquest of the dead body and also autopsy was performed by Dr. Ravindra Choudhary (P. W. 15 ). Post-mortem report in Ex. P- 13. During the course of investigation, police prepared spot map. On disclosure statement of the appellant Kattaar was seized from the appellant and his nails were also seized and sent for chemical examination. Ex. P-19 is the FSL report and P-20 is Serologist report. After completion of the investigation, appellant and other three acquitted co-accused persons were charge-sheeted. The appellant and the acquitted co-accused persons denied the charges. Their defence was one of denial. According to them because of ill-will they were falsely implicated. They have not examined any witness in defence whereas prosecution has examined in total 21 witnesses and got proved 20 documents in its favour. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, while acquitting three co-accused persons named Mahendrasingh, Rajendra and Sonu, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned herein above.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on solitary testimony of brother of the deceased Karamat (P. W. 11 ). He was a chance and interested witness and in fact he had not lodged the FIR and the same was concocted by the police. The learned Counsel has submitted that this solitary eye-witness has not been relied upon by the Trial Court for acquitted co-accused persons, therefore, for the present appellant also his testimony is not worth.