MAYARAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24/09/2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Khandwa in S.T. No.51/2009, whereby learned Sessions Judge found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had a doubt that both of his wives had left him due to the witchcraft of Suraj Bai. So on 14/11/2008 at about 01.30 p.m., when deceased Suraj Bai, wife of complainant Gendalal (PW-1) was returning to her house after fetching water along with Bharti Bai (PW-3) from well, on the way, near old forest check post appellant came and assaulted Suraj Bai by axe. On seeing the incident, Bharti Bai (PW-3) went to Suraj Bai's house and narrated the incident to Maya Bai (PW-2), daughter of deceased Suraj Bai. On that, Bharti Bai (PW-3) came to the spot at Forest check post, where she saw Suraj Bai lying on earth and appellant was assaulting deceased Suraj Bai by axe. As appellant saw Maya Bai (PW-2), he ran toward Maya Bai to assault her. On that, Maya Bai (PW-2) ran away towards village. On the way, she came upon Narmada Shankar (PW-4) and told the incident to Narmada Shankar. Narmada Shankar (PW-4) narrated the incident to complainant Gendalal (PW-1), husband of the deceased. On that, he came to the spot and found Suraj Bai's body lying there. Thereafter, Gendalal (PW-1) went to P.S. Piplod and lodged the report (Ex.P-1) of the incident which was written by S.K. Suryawanshi (PW-13) who registered Crime No. 8/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant and investigated the matter. During investigation, he went to the spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P-5) and also took photographs of dead body of Suraj Bai and also prepared enquest memo (Ex.P-3) of dead body of deceased Suraj Bai and also seized simple and blood-stained soil and wood of the axe from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-4). He also sent her dead body for postmortem to CHC, Piplod along with application (Ex.P-6A), where Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-9) conducted an autopsy of the dead body of Suraj Bai and gave P.M. report (Ex.P-7). M.K. Suryawanshi (PW-13) also took appellant in his custody on the same day and seized one blood stained vest which he had worn at the time of his arrest and one handkerchief from his possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-8). On interrogation appellant gave the information regarding seizure of axe. On that, he prepared information memo (Ex.P-16) and seized the axe from the possession of the appellant and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-16A). He also recorded the statement of prosecution witnesses and also sent seized article for chemical examination to F.S.L. Sagar through S.P. Khandwa along with the draft (Ex.P-17), from where report (Ex.P-18) was received where it was mentioned that human blood was found on the axe (Article D), vest (Article E) and handkerchief (Article F) seized from the possession of the appellant. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the appellant before JMFC, Khandwa, who committed the case to the Court of Session, where on that charge sheet S.T. No.51/2009 was registered. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and tried the case. The prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses for proving its case. Appellant abjured the guilt and took the defence that he was innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. However, after trial learned Sessions Judge found appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. Being aggrieved from that judgement, appellant filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the eyewitnesses of the incident were closely related with the deceased and interested in success of the prosecution. There are many contradictions and omissions, in their statements which could also not be corroborated by the medical evidence. Learned trial Court without appreciating these facts wrongly found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C.