PUTHUA @ PUTHU @ SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.03.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.187/2004. The appellant alongwith two other accused persons were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 302 read with 34 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'). The trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment and RI for six months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 200/- with default stipulation RI for one year and SI for one month respectively.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. on 26.11.2003, son of the complainant (PW-6) namely Deshraj Choudhary was grazing cattle in a field. Adjacent to that field, there was field of accused Dulare Kotwar. Accused persons came there. They abused Deshraj Choudhary and slapped him. Seeing this, complainant Smt. Kalli (PW-6) came there and asked the accused persons that why they had beaten her son. Thereafter, they inflicted injuries to Smt. Kalli by lathies. Deceased, who is the father of complainant-Kalli, came there and the accused persons had also beaten him by lathies. Report of the incident was lodged at the police station. The deceased was referred to District Hospital, Satna. He was admitted in the hospital. Subsequently, on 01.12003, in the night, he died. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused persons. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.

(3.) Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that alleged eye witnesses are interested witnesses. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder. In alternate, learned counsel has submitted that there was one injury on the head of the deceased, even if the statement of the deceased, which was treated as dying declaration, be accepted, then the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC. Hence, the sentence awarded to the appellant be modified as already undergone because he has already undergone jail sentence of more than 10 years.