TEJILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment recorded by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 410/89 as per judgment dated 8.1.1996.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case, on 24.3.1989 in between 11 a.m. to 5 p.m., Bannu alias Rajkumar, aged about 14 years, was murdered by Tejilal and Smt. Longa Bai. Bannu @ Rajkumar went out of the house along with Bihari at about 10.30 a.m., when Murari, father of Bannu, made enquiry from Bihari, he stated that he had seen Bannu in the field of Manoj Patel, accused were also there, they were trying to hide something beneath logs of paddy. On removing the logs dead body of Bannu became visible, an intimation was sent through village Kotwar to the concerned police station. Police came to the spot and recorded Dehati Natish and inquest of dead body was prepared. As many as 15 injuries were found on the person of deceased, out of which 13 were incised wound and 2 were lacerated wounds. At the instance of accused, an Axe was seized from the field which was sent to FSL for serological examination, presence of blood was found, other articles were also seized, postmortem was performed.

(3.) SHRI N.P. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that in the instant case, IO has not been examined, investigation made has not been established, Dehati Nalish was a devise to concoct the story and to obtain time to give shape to the prosecution story. Statement of Biharilal (PW 2) fall short of proving the guilt of accused. It was an error apparent on part of the counsel of accused not to cross - examine the witnesses Biharilal (PW 2) and Murarial (PW 5), it was necessary to cross -examine the aforesaid witnesses on behalf of accused, but counsel due to his mistake did not cross -examine the aforesaid witnesses, it was the duty of the Court also to ensure that certain questions were put so as to explain the circumstances appearing in their examination in chief against the accused. There are several contradictions which could not be proved due to non cross -examination of aforesaid witnesses that has resulted failure of justice in the instant case. Counsel has prayed for remitting the case to trial Court to give an opportunity to cross -examine the aforesaid witnesses.