MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced of imprisonment for life for committing murder of Madanlal.

(2.) The prosecution case is that a day prior to the incident there was quarrel between the appellant Mansingh and the deceased Madan in the Ramleela ground over place of sleeping. On 18.4.1980 there was Ramleela and after the show was over persons slept on the stage. At about 5 a.m. after hearing some notice Ramdaras (P.W. 9) got up and found the appellant assaulting the deceased with an axe on the neck. He raised an alarm and other persons, Jawaharlal (P. W. 1), Ramkailash (P.W. 6), Prahalad (P.W. 7) etc. got up and saw the appellant running away from the spot with an axe in his hand. Ramdaras (P.W. 9) then went and lodged the report (Ex P. 13) in the police station Baidan, half a kilometer away at 6.05 a.m naming the appellant to be the assailant. The police took up investigation and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Dr. R.N. Mishra (P.W. 8) found one lacerated wound over the right ear, one incised wound on the left temporal bone and there was depression mark on the neck. According to the doctor the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling The appellant was taken into custody and on his memorandum the blood stained axe was seized which was sent for chemical examination and the Serologist in his report (Ex. p. 17) found presence of human blood on the axe. The defence is of denial and false implication. Relying on the statements of the prosecution witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence and the F.I.R., the appellant has been convicted.

(3.) After having heard the parties and gone through the record, we are unable to sustain the conviction and sentence. Only eye witness to the incident is Ramdaras (P.W. 9), but be turned hostile. He deposed that he was told by Jawaharlal (P.W 1) that the deceased has been assaulted with an axe by the appellant but he did not see him there. Jawahar lal on the other hand deposed that he was woken up by Ramdaras and saw the appellant running away from the spot. But in cross-examination he admitted that at that time it was dark and be could only see the back side of the person running away. Ramkailash (P.W. 6) stated that when he got up be saw the appellant running away with an axe and the deceased was lying injured. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen the appellant running away but since Vyasji shouted that it was Mansingh who was running away after assaulting the deceased, he has taken his name. Prahalad (P.W. 7) also stated that he got up and saw the appellant running away with an axe and the deceased lying injured. But in cross-examination he admitted that he saw the person running away from a distance of 100 feet and the person running away was wearing only a chhadi and contradicts Ramkailash who stated that the person running away was wearing a baniyan and lungi. Therefore, it is not proved beyond doubt in the evidence of these witnesses that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with an axe and had ran away from the spot. The only other evidence is the seizure of blood stained axe on the memorandum of the appellant on which human blood has been found by the Serologist. But this evidence by itself is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the murder unless the blood group on the axe is the same as the blood group of the deceased. There is no evidence in this regard. Medical evidence belies the story given in the F.I.R.