ANIL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the appellant against the judgment and finding dated 18th March, 1994 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 25/1992 whereby convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 377 and 367 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for life, ten years; and seven years respectively. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court, is that on 14-5-1991 in the night, complainant Thawariya (P. W. 1), his brother-in-law Mangya @ Mangilal (P. W. 3) and Sardar (P. W. 2) were residing with their families in a garden known as Das Ka Bagicha, Indore. Thawariya (P. W. 1) was sleeping inside of his hutment in the night. His brother-in-law Mangya and mother-in-law were sleeping in a separate hut and deceased Raju aged 3 years was also sleeping with her maternal-grand-mother. The huts of the complainant/witnesses were without any door. In the intervening night of 13th and 14th September, 1991 at about 1 to 2 A. M. , Thawariya was informed by mother-in-law and Mangya about missing of deceased Raju from the hut. Thereafter, Thawariya and his all relations went in search of Raju in the adjacent area. While in search, they met Mahesh Yadav (P. W. 5) to whom they disclosed about missing of Raju at which Mahesh Yadav also accompanied them in search of Raju. In the morning they all again went towards Das Ka Bagicha and came to know that one miscreant was caught by the people. When they reached nearby the temple, they found that Munna Shukla and Binda Pahalwan (P. W. 4) had caught appellant Anil Sharma, resident of Hukum Chand Colony, Indore. The appellant was caught by them because he often visiting Das Ka Bagicha. Binda Pahalwan told the parents of the deceased boy that in the night between 2 to 3 A. M. , appellant Anil Sharma was coming from the side of their hutment because of which he caught him and detained him. Thawariya, his brother-in-law Mangya, Munna Shukla, Mahesh Yadav and Binda Pahalwan started interrogation of appellant Anil Sharma as to why he was coming from the side of huts and whereabouts of Raju, the son of Mangya. At the first instance Anil Sharma avoided the question and did not disclose anything but when force was used by Mahesh Yadav and other persons, he disclosed before them that in the night his mental condition was not in order because of which he committed bad act with Raju after taking him from inside the hut and when Raju raised cry he killed him by throttling his neck and dead body was lying in the bushes. On the basis of this disclosure statement of appellant, parents of the deceased and witnesses alongwith the appellant went near the bushes and found the dead body of child Raju. The same was having number of external injuries and his shirt and sweater were lying near his dead body. The witnesses Mangya and Thawariya went to Police Station and lodged the report vide Ex. P-5 on 14-9-1991 in the morning at 7. 05 A. M. On the basis of this report, Crime No. 236/1991 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and Police stepped into investigation. After preparing inquest report, dead body of deceased was sent for post-mortem examination and post-mortem was performed by Dr. R. K. Singh (P. W. 9 ). His reports are, Exs. P-11 and P-12. From near the dead body, bushirt, sweater, blood stained grass and other articles were seized. All the seized articles were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, but report was not received and filed by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

(3.) AFTER due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges. His defence was that he was working under one Badriprasad up to 12 o'clock in the night of the incident and he was falsely implicated. The appellant was put on trial. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents to prove its case against the appellant, whereas appellant has examined Badriprasad (D. W. 1 ). The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties, relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.