SAMPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22.09.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.96/2008. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 203 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 203 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment, RI for one year and RI for three months respectively alongwith fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that deceased was the motherin-law of the appellant. The appellant got married with the daughter of the deceased 15 years before the incident. Appellant was living in the house of the deceased. There used to be quarrel between the appellant, his wife Ganga Bai and the deceased on the work. On the date of incident, a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and his wife. He had inflicted a blow by lathi on his wife Ganga Bai. Deceased tried to pacify the quarrel. The appellant had also inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased, due to which, deceased was died. The appellant had given a false information to the police that the deceased had taken liquor and she received injuries because she fell down and he received information about the death of the deceased when he was working at the field. Police registered merg vide Ex.P22 and conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant. 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, 203 and 323 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. Recovery from the appellant has not been proved. The trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence of PW-10. However, the aforesaid witness is hear say witness and his evidence is not reliable. It is further contended by the learned counsel that FSL report has not been produced by the prosecution before the Court. The trial Court has committed error in holding that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.