LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-39

AJIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On April 18, 2018
AJIT KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal against conviction under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of appellant/accused Ajit Kumar Jain is directed against the judgment dated 14.03.2008 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.212/2017; whereby accused/appellant Ajit Kumar Jain was convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) (A). The prosecution case before the trial Court in brief was that first informant Rajendra Kumar Jain was son of deceased Kusumrani. She lived jointly with her husband Suresh, younger son Rajendra and his wife Pinki. Her elder son lived separately. They had a grocery shop near telephone exchange. About 2 or 3 days before the date of the incident, her daughter-in-law Pinki had gone to her maternal home at Tejgarh. At about 02:30 p.m. on 27.08.2007, first informant Rajendra Jain had gone to his grocery shop. At about 07:30 p.m. deceased Kusumrani had gone to his shop with tea and had returned home. At about 09:00 p.m. first informant Rajendra returned home. He found that shutter of the house was pulled down but it was not locked. He lifted the shutter and went inside. He found that lot of blood had spilt on the floor in the middle room of his house and television and fan were on. In the inner room, his mother Kusumrani was lying in a supine position in a pool of blood. There were deep, cut wounds below her ear and in the temple region. He raised an alarm; whereon, son of Munna Mistri, Gudda Thakur and others from the locality arrived. He found that his mother had died. By that time, his father Suresh and elder brother also arrived. Thereafter, he lodged first information report in P.S. Nohta, District Damoh at about 09:30 p.m.

(3.) Accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He stated that the witnesses deposed against him on account of old enmity.