STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KHUNNA @ GIRISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred the preset appeal, being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15/05/2001, passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena (MP) in Sessions Trial No.226/1993, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charges of Sections 393 and 302/34 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that on 12/05/1993 at about 2:45 am the deceased Ishwar Kunwar went to the police station Matabasiya in an injured condition and lodged the FIR Ex.P/7 that when in the previous night she was sleeping in her house, the respondent Khunna @ Girish Kumar along-with Vijay Singh entered into the house and tried to snatch her golden ornaments from her ear. On her shouting, the respondent Khunna held the deceased Ishwar Kunwar and Vijay Singh assaulted with a dagger causing several injuries to her. After registration of FIR, Ishwar Kunwar was sent for medico-legal examination by a requisition letter Ex.P/10. However, she could not have been taken for medical examination because she had already died. Her body was sent for post mortem. Dr.P.K. Singh Tomar (PW7) performed the post mortem on the dead body on 12/05/1993 and gave a report Ex.P/5. He found as many as four injuries to the deceased. One incised wound was found on her right thigh, whereas one incised wound was found on her left leg; one lacerated wound was found on her left forearm, and one stab wound was found on her left chest. By this fourth injury, her left lung was found torn and a huge blood was found on her left chest cavity. According to the doctor, the deceased Ishwar Kunwar had died due to haemorrhage to her left lung and consequential haemorrhage. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Magisterial Court, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena.

(3.) The respondent in the statement under Section 313 of CrPC abjured his guilt. He took a plea that the deceased Ishwar Kunwar was his aunt and her property may not be released in the name of the respondent, a false case was lodged by the complainant party. However, no defence evidence was adduced.