GANPAT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2.9.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.189/1994, whereby appellant held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that before two years of the incident Kishan father of appellant was killed by Kunjilal. On this account a threat was given to Balaprasad and deceased Kunjilal had threatened the grand son of father of accused when he was grazing Soybean and at that time Kishan had called the father of Kunjilal that he would kill the deceased. At around 9 o'clock Chowkidar of the village witnessed that on one bullock-cart son of Jagdish was sitting and he enquired from the son that from where bullock-cart is coming then son of the Jagdish replied that bullock-cart had come from Garhi. In the second bullock-cart, appellant accused was not there. He had gone at the site of the field. The Chowkidar had heard some sound and thereafter he enquired who is there, then appellant came there and told me that he is there. Thereafter he ran away. The Chowkidar found dead body of the deceased, thereafter he informed the said incident to the Sarpanch of the village and lodged a report. Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. The trial Court relied on the evidence of Nannulal (PW1) and other evidence and convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount further sentence of 6 months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. The evidence is not sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that evidence of Nannulal (PW1) is not reliable. After perusal of the medical evidence, injuries could not be caused by the article which was seized from the possession of the appellant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following judgments :-