KEKARIYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under sections 374 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 appellant has challenged the judgment dated 27/4/2006 passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track, Jobat in Sessions Trial No.314/2005 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 500/- and default imprisonment of one month R.I.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 22/9/2005, Kutariya, husband of complainant Santubai was in the agricultural field and keeping a watch on the field and the complainant Santubai was also present and their house is also located in the same agricultural field, when around 5 pm appellant, a resident of the same village, came alongwith bow and arrow and asked Kutariya that he would pluck corn from the field on which Kutariya resisted by saying that earlier also he had taken the corn from his field twice. Kutaria had tried to stop him, on which the appellant had threatened him to kill and being afraid Kutariya ran towards his house followed by Santubai and the appellant. On reaching the courtyard of the house, appellant had shot an arrow from the bow which hit Kutariya on the right side of the chest and Kutariya fell down. When Santubai shouted, other persons i.e. second wife of Kutariya, son of Selkibai Shankar, Jeth of the complainant-Jhetu and Dewar-Habu came and saw the appellant causing injury by means of arrow. Thereafter, complainant disclosed the incident to Sarpanch Sesingh and Chowkidar Desingh and she alongwith them went to the police station and lodged the report resulting into registration of crime No.175/05 against the appellant. The postmortem of the deceased was done and after investigation, police filed challan against the appellant who was charged with commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and on abjuring the guilt, the trial took place in which the Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of sudden fight in which single injury was caused and therefore, the conviction can be sustained at the most under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and the appellant has already completed 14 years of actual sentence.