GAPPU @ JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 2437/2007 has been filed by appellant Gappu @ Jagdish and Criminal Appeal No. 217/2009 has been filed by appellant Motu @ Ashok. Both the appeals are against the common judgment dated 18th October, 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 271/2005 by Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Hoshangabad (M.P.), hence they have tagged together, heard together and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that brother of the complainant Guddu was arrested by the Railway Police in some offence 3-4 days before the incident. He was sent to jail. His wife Kanti was alone in the house 2 -3 persons had gone to her house in the night when deceased came to know about the said fact he objected about the aforesaid act to Gappu Dhobi, Motu Gond and Guddu Chamar. There was some altercation took place between them at about 7: 30 in the morning. Thereafter Guddu Chamar and Gappu Dhobi caught hold of deceased Sanjay and said that who are you to prevent us from going into the house of Kantibai. They abused him and thereafter appellant- Motu Gond had taken out a Gupti from his vest and inflicted a blow on the stomach of the deceased. Deceased fell down on the ground. The deceased was taken to J.S.R. Hospital, Itarsi where he was declared dead. A report was lodged at the police station. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. Appellants abjured their guilt during trial and pleaded innocence. Appellant Guddu @ Omprakash was tried by Juvenile Court. Trial court held the appellant Motu @ Ashok guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and appellant Gappu @ Jagdish under Section 302 /34 IPC and awarded sentence of life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default another six months imprisonment.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Motu @ Ashok has submitted that alleged eyewitnesses are related witnesses. There are major contradictions and omissions in their deposition. Hence the evidence of aforesaid witnesses is not reliable. In alternate, learned counsel has also submitted that the offence committed by appellant Motu @ Ashok would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.