BHANGDA & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, District-Jhabua in Sessions Trial No.74/2001 dated 31.07.2002, wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant Bhangra guilty under Section 302 of IPC and appellants Tersingh and Dhunda guilty under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- and three months rigorous imprisonment by way of default stipulation.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief was that the complainant Narliya (P.W-1) lodged an F.I.R. in Police Station-Nanpur, DistrictJhabua on 10.01.2001 at 7:00 am stating therein that on 09.01.2001 at about 7:00 pm, he was filling water at the village hand pump, when he saw the deceased Ditla S/o Soma Bhilala going towards his field for bringing toddy of khajoor (dates). He was passing through the field of Remla S/o Chhitu, at that moment appellants Bhangda, Tersingh and Dhunda came there. Appellant Bhangda was having falia in his hand and other two appellants were unarmed. They started using abusive language against him and also said that when he was claiming a share in produce of mango tree belonging to Fui, and thereafter, they said that they would kill him today. After that, appellants Tersingh and Dhunda caught hold of the deceased and appellant Bhangda gave various blows by falia, due to which, he suffered head injury and fell dead. After the incident, Valsingh, Radhu, Cahnder Singh, Vesti and Fate Singh came on the spot to whom, he narrated the incident.

(3.) The appeal was withdrawn in respect of appellant Bhangda on 06.08.2017, and therefore, the appeal on behalf of Tersingh and Dhunda remaines to be decided. Aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal is filed on the ground (i) that the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to law (ii) the learned Trial Court erred in believing the eye-witness Narliya (P.W-1), who was the only eye-witness. As per the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the remaining witnesses reached on the spot after the appellants allegedly left and they were not eye-witnesses and conviction is based on the sole testimony of Narliya (P.W-1). It is also said that there is a material improvement in his statement before the Court and this makes his statement unreliable.