NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25-9-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No. 125/89 convicting him under Section 304 Part 2 of IPC with a sentence to undergo for five years Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) AS per case of the prosecution, on dated 31-7-1989 at about 11. 30 in the morning when Heeradas and Kashiram were looking after the work as mate in Sangam Nursery situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Lodhikhera Tehsil Sausar. As per direction of the aforesaid mate various labourers of different villages like Kabarpipla, Kundam etc. were working in such nursery. The deceased Yuvraj resident of Village Kabarpipla was also working there alongwith his brother Dhanraj and some other persons of his village. The aforesaid Kashiram and Heeradas were allotting the work with some discrimination in between the different labourers of different villages as alleged some more work was being allotted to the labourers resident of Kabarpipla while the less work was allotted to labourers of Village Kundam. On account of it some altercation took place in between the said deceased Yuvraj and mate Kashiram. At the same time, appellant Namdeo resident of Village Kundam who was also working near the place of the incident came there and picked up a (FAVADA) Spade as it was laid there and gave the blow on the head of Yuvraj. He sustained injury from its sharp side. Thereafter the appellant ran away from the spot. Yuvraj was taken to Police Station, Lodhikhera. On registration of the offence he was sent to the Hospital Sausar. On medical examination and preliminary treatment he was sent to the District Hospital, Chhindwara for further treatment where during treatment he succumbed to the injury on dated 3-8-1989. So, initially the offence was registered under Section 307 of IPC. During investigation on his death Section 302 of IPC was invoked. After holding the investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court where charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant. On denying the same the trial was held. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as well as 15 witnesses while one witness Kashiram was examined by the appellant in his defence. At the stage of appreciation of the evidence, the appellant was acquitted from the offence under Section 302 of IPC but held guilty for the offence under Section 304, Part II of IPC and sentenced as said above hence this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case as he was not working at the place of the incident he further said that in his village one other Namdeo son of Mahadev was the resident who was working in such Nursery on the date of the incident and has been absconded after the incident but on account of wrong pretext the appellant was implicated in the case. In support of his contention he also referred the document Ex. D-4 certified copy of the Electoral roll of the year 1988 showing the name of Namdeo son of Mahadev a resident of Village Kundam. The appellant is altogether different person.