DEEPAK @ PUNCHHA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.12.2007, passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No. 304/2006, whereby the appellant No.1 has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 / 120-B and 201 of IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- under Sections 302 / 120-B of IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 201 of IPC with a stipulation for 3 months rigorous imprisonment in case of default for each offence, and the appellant No.2 has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 / 34 , 120-B and 201 of IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- under Sections 302 / 34 , 120-B of IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- under Section 201 of IPC with a stipulation for 3 months rigorous imprisonment in case of default for each offence.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellants No.1 and 2 along with co-accused Mukesh with a common intent conspired to kill Borunath in the night of 12.07.2006 and appellant No.2 in order to cover up the evidence and to get the insurance claim of appellant No.1's Insurance policies informed the police that the dead body is of her husband appellant No.1.

(3.) As per the oral report of appellant No.2 Kirti, FIR Ex.P-24 and marg intimation Ex.P-26 was recorded at 7:05 a.m. on 13.07.2006 wherein she had asserted that her husband appellant No.1 Deepak was a police informer and on 12.07.2006 at about 9:30 p.m., one 22 years old boy came to their house to inform that one "Kriparam Meena Bhaiya" had called her husband. According to appellant No.2 Kirti, appellant No.1 went with the boy and had not returned since and when she went to ease herself in the morning in the field of Mukesh Agnihotri, she saw a dead body with stab injuries and face burnt, lying in the bushes near the fence. The appellant No.2 Kriti further asserted that she and her mother-in-law recognised the dead body as that of her husband Deepak (appellant No.1) on the basis of black lower and sleepers lying near the body.