SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28. 02. 1995 passed by the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 298/1993. The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5,000/-and awarded sentence of life.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief is that, deceased Yogesh had gone to attend coaching class on the date of incident i. e. on 24. 09. 1993, one boy came to him and informed that appellant had come to meet him. Thereafter, deceased came outside of the class and appellant and one boy asked Yogesh [since deceased] that what had happened in the night. Deceased replied that there was a talk with the mother of appellant. Thereafter, appellant asked which is that girl. Deceased replied that what you are thinking is not proper. Thereafter, appellant inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased by knife and he ran away from the spot. Deceased was admitted in the hospital where he was died. Appellant killed the deceased because deceased was teasing his sister. After lodging report, police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. Trial Court held appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder and awarded punishment of life.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that there is no reliable evidence to convict the appellant for commission of offence of murder. Trial Court committed an error in placing reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased. It is further submitted by the Senior counsel that in alternate, even if the evidence of the prosecution be accepted as it is, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. In support of aforesaid contention, learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Arjun and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 3 SCC 247.