PRAVESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellants who are in jail for the last more than ten years, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 180/97 whereby the appellants have been convicted for commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Kissuram.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, FIR (Ex.P/17) is lodged by Vasudev (PW 7) on 15.4.1997 stating that on that day, he along with his mother Rajabeti, and younger brother Mohan had gone to a fair near Shitla Mata of Hazinagar for selling clay toys. They left their elder brother Mayaram, sister-in-law Malti, his wife Siya and father at home. At about 3.00 in the afternoon, complainant's wife Siya also reached the fair. When they returned back around 7.00 in the evening, they did not find their elder brother and sister-in-law. Doors of the shop were closed. When complainant Vasudeo opened the doors he found blood was spread on the floor. He lit a match stick and found that his father Kissuram was lying dead. His neck was cut by some sharp weapon. When he told this fact to his mother and wife, they started crying. On hearing their cry, Dayaram, Ramdas etc collected on the spot. Thereafter, then went to Chowkidar of the village and lodged the FIR Ex.P/17. In the FIR, they have expressed their doubt towards appellant No.1 Pravesh, as according to them. Pravesh has stolen their hen 2-3 days prior to the date of incident and there were exchange of abuses between deceased Kissuram and appellant Pravesh.

(3.) On the basis of FIR, police registered a criminal case at Crime No.67/97, conducted investigation and filed challan against the accused. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The Sessions Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the same has acquitted Veersingh S/o Sirnamsingh of commission of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, however convicted the present appellants as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.