BHOORELAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Bhoorelal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-10-2007 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Katni in sessions Trial No. 114/2007 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to undergo R. I. for life and pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for two years is before this Court with a submission that the Court below erred in convicting and sentencing the accused.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that on 15-4-2007 the dead body of one Rampati was found in the field of one Hari lodhi. On 14-4-2007 at about 8. 30 the deceased Rampati went on a cycle to collect Mahua but on 15-4-2007 one Lakhanlal brother of the deceased was informed by Kailash Gupta that Rampati had been murdered. After receiving the information Lakhanlal went to the field and found that Rampati was dead and he had some injuries on his neck. Dehati Nalish Exh. P-7 and inquest report exh. P-8 and report relating to unnatural death was registered at Exhs. P-7, P-8 and P-17. After finding that the death was homicidal the first information report exh. P-16 was registered. The dead body was sent for post mortem, Panchnamas were prepared, blood stained and controlled earth were recovered/seized, statement of the witnesses were recorded and thereafter the prosecution agency filed the challan against the accused Bhoorelal and also pointed out to the Court that one Gyani alias Maskole was also co-accused but as he was a juvenile he was to be tried by the Juvenile Court. The accused having denied commission of the offence was put to trial. The prosecution agency produced as many as 19 documents while the accused produced one. The prosecution agency examined as many as 10 witnesses. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt and it accordingly convicted the appellant.

(3.) SHRI Koshta, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that undisputedly there are no eye witnesses to the incident. According to him the court below has placed much reliance on the alleged threat extended by the accused to the deceased and recovery of certain articles. According to him the court below was also unjustified in relying upon the confessional statement made by co-accused Gyani alias Maskole less appreciating that neither co-accused gyani was being jointly tried with the appellant, the said document of confession was not produced before the Court, the same was not proved and no single question was put to the accused about the said confessional statement. Shri Koshta submitted that suspicion howsoever grave would not take the place of proof. According to him the circumstances which speak against the interest of the accused are required to be put to him under Section 313 Cr. PC and if such circumstances are not put to him and the accused is not provided an opportunity to explain the circumstances and the accused is in a position to show a serious prejudice to his defence then such evidence has to be ignored from consideration.