NARAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Narain Singh has been convicted under S. 302, IPC for fratricide and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under S. 364, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for this offence.

(2.) Puran Singh (PW. 1) is father of accused Narain and deceased Gopal aged about eight years. On 11-4-1986 he had gone to Berla and on his return to his village Kospatar in the evening he found his son Gopal missing. He made a search for him. He informed village Patel Prem Chand (P.W. 2). The accused confessed at about 10 p.m. before Prem Chand (PW. 2) and his father Puran Singh (PW. 1) that he committed murder of Gopal. He was assisted by accused Santan Verma who has been acquitted. On 12-4-1986 at about 7-30 a.m. Puran Singh (PW. 1) lodged the FIR Ex. P/1 at Berla Police Station. The Police reached the village. S. R. Diwan (PW. 12) interrogated the accused at the house of Prem Chand (P.W. 2) in his presence and in the presence of Goverdhan singh (PW. 9). The accused gave the information that he has hidden the dead body of Gopal who was also known as Palu near the Nala. His information was recorded in the memo Ex. P. 2. The accused took them to the Nala and he took out the dead body of Gopal from the Nala. It was recovered as per Ex.P. 3. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. C. S. Verma (PW. 4). His report is Ex. P/9. In his opinion the cause of death of Gopal was throttling. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased was last seen with accused Narain by Lakhan (P.W. 3) aged about nine years on 11-4-1986. According to the prosecution the motive for causing the death of the deceased by the accused was that he had sold his own share of the land and he wanted to grab the share of Gopal after causing his death.

(3.) In this appeal it is not disputed that Gopal met a homicidal end. That is amply proved by the medical evidence and other material on record. The only question is whether the accused is the author of this crime. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and carefully scrutinised the evidence on record. We are of the opinion that evidence adduced by the prosecution does not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We shall deal with the prosecution evidence in detail.