NONELAL @ SADHU KOL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 25.09.2008 passed in Session Trial No. 66/2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Katni, whereby, the appellant, was held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, further six months' R.I.

(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in short is that on 15.03.2008 at around 6 O'clock in the evening, it is informed by complainant Durga Bai Kol (PW 1) to Police Station Sleemnabad that she resides at village Dharwara and she works for Seetaram Garg to oversee his farm. She has constructed a hut there. On the same day, at around 4.30 p.m when her husband (deceased Raja Kol) was lying down in courtyard of the hut the appellant came there and abused him. On telling him not to abuse, the appellant inflicted three to four blows of spade on the left side of head and other parts of body of the deceased. At the time of incident, Samay Lal (PW 2) and Mangobai (PW 3) had reached the spot. Durga Bai lodged the report (Ex. P-1) and marg intimation (Ex. P-2) was registered at Police Station. Investigating Officer A.K. Shukla (PW 9) had also reached the spot. He issued notice under Section 175 Cr. P.C. to the witnesses to remain present during Lash Panchnama vide Ex. P-3. He prepared Lash Panchanama vide Ex. P-4. He also prepared the spot map vide Ex. P-6. Dr. S.K. Pathak (PW 8) performed autopsy of the deceased vide Ex. P-14 and A.K. Shukla (PW 9) recorded statement of witnesses. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed. Trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accused abjured his guilt during trial and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and appellant examined one witness during the trial. The Trial Court found that Appellant was guilty of commission of offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further stated that most of the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. There are material contradictions and omissions in the first information report as well as in the evidence of Durgabai (PW 1). So judgment passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and appellant be acquitted.