CHHOTELAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been convicted under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarguja.

(2.) According to prosecution there was old enmity between appellant Chhotelal and deceased Vrihaspati. On 22.12.1981 at about 1 p.m. there was an altercation and a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant gave fist blows to Vrihaspati and when Vrihaspati fell down, he gave him blows with kicks and stamped over his person. Vrihaspati received various injuries and died soon after. Babulal (P.W. 20), a neighbour, was informed about the incident and he rushed to the spot. There he saw that Vrihaspati was lying unconscious and appellant Chhotelal was standing there and abusing everybody in a state of great fury. Babulal lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Manendragarh, the same day. After inquest - the body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. A. K. Mishra (P.W. 2) noted bruises and-abrasions on the body of the deceased particularly on the chest and epigastria region. On internal examination he found that 4th, 5th and 6th ribs on the left side and 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs at midclavicular line had been fractured. The fracture of the ribs had pierced the lung tissue on the right side. The liver was also lacerated. Death was due to internal hammerrhage and shock caused by the aforesaid injuries.

(3.) Prosecution among others examined two eye-witnesses Nanhu (P.W. 11) and Munni (P.W. 14). Nanhu stated that on the date and at the time of the incident he was close to the spot when he saw Chhotelal hitting the deceased. At that time Chhotelal was wearing SARKARI JUTAT, probably referring to the heavy shoes. The only point which was submitted against the probative value of the deposition of this witness was that he was a child witness aged about 11 years and was open to influence. It was not suggested however, during his cross-examination whether the witness was in any way under the influence of the deceased or his relations. The mere fact that he was a child witness could not be pressed into service for rejecting his testimony particularly when his cross- examination indicated that the witness was capable of understanding the questions and was giving relational answers.