STATE OF M P Vs. ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has preferred this appeal under Section 378, Cr. PC after obtaining the leave from this Court against the judgment of acquittal dated 11-9-1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 165/95 for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story, on 27-7-1995, at about 7. 30 p. m. in the evening deceased Hariram along with his nephew respondent had gone to ease himself near Aamghat, but in the night deceased Hariram did not come back. Mulua, father of Hariram, enquired from the respondent about the whereabouts of Hariram, but he said that he is not aware about him. The deceased was searched in the night but on the next day at about 12 p. m. his dead-body was found lying in the water in Aamghat Nala, which was also stained with blood. It was also the prosecution case that the respondent, who is the nephew of the deceased has developed a liking towards the wife of Hariram and on account of this, the relations between uncle and nephew were not cordial. Therefore, the prosecution case was that it was the respondent, who committed the murder of deceased. Mulua, father of the deceased, lodged FIR on the next date at 3. 30 p. m. , which is Exh. P-6. The dead-body was taken out from nala, panchayatnama was prepared and the dead-body was referred for post-mortem. After investigation charge-sheet was filed. In the Trial Court none of the witnesses including the witnesses of recovery and arrest memo have supported the prosecution except Rambai (P. W. 12), who is the wife of the deceased. As per the evidence of Dr. Jain (P. W. 11), who performed the autopsy of the dead-body, two incised wounds were found on the neck of the deceased and the cause of death was excessive bleeding. The nature of the death was homicidal and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Trial Court found that it was a case of circumstantial evidence, there was no eye-witness account and only evidence of Rambai (P. W. 12) for last seen and motive is not sufficient to convict, thus acquitted the respondent, against which the State has filed this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. There is no dispute that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution evidence and they were all declared hostile except Rambai (P. W. 12), who is the wife of the deceased, but the question is whether the evidence of Rambai (P. W. 12) for last seen and motive available on record is sufficient to reverse the finding of acquittal and to convict the respondent.