STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DHEERA @ DHEERAJ RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 15.06.2011 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra District Gwalior in S.T. No. 345/2010, whereby respondent has been acquitted from the charge of Section 302 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution's case, in short, is that on 14.05.2010 the deceased Ramkishan was found dead near a liquor shop. Complainant Nandram (PW-1) lodged a merg intimation Ex. P-1 relating to death of deceased Ramkishan. The Investigation Officer went to the spot and prepared a Panchayatnama lash and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Dr. D.C. Arya (PW-8) performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Ramkishan and gave a report Ex. P-16. According to Dr. Arya, he died due to strangulation which could be caused by scarf, thereafter various witnesses were examined. The witness Suresh and Panchhiram (PW-6) have stated that on 13.05.2010 in the evening hours, they were consuming liquor near liquor shop and the deceased Ramkishan was taking liquor along with the respondent Dheera @ Dheeraj, thereafter some quarrel took place for payment and respondent Dheera held the neck of the deceased Ramkishan with a scarf and started dragging him. Panchhiram and Suresh have tried to save the deceased Ramkishan. Thereafter, Ramkishan started taking liquor separately, again respondent Dheera came and dragged the deceased Ramkishan by fixing a scarf on his neck. After few minutes, respondent Dheera @ Dheeraj came back and started taking liquor. He shouted that he disposed off the deceased Ramkishan. After consuming liquor the respondent left the liquor shop and before leaving he gave a threat to Panchhiram (PW-6) and Suresh and prohibited them not to tell anyone about the incident. However, Panchhiram who was cousin of the deceased Ramkishan intimated about the incident to his father on 19.05.2010 and he gave his statement before the police on 21.05.2010. Thereafter, the respondent was arrested and on interrogation, he confessed the guilt under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and memo Ex. P-18 was recorded. Thereafter, a scarf was recovered from the respondent by recovery memo Ex. P-19. Since scarf was not blood stained, it was not sent for forensic science analysis. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Dabra who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately, it was transferred to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darba.

(3.) Respondent abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced. The trial Court after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted the respondent from the charge of Section 302 of IPC.