UMED SHOBHIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from jail by accused-appellant Umed against his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions trial No. 68 of 1975.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the accused-appellant was that both, he and the deceased Ramu, used to live together in a locality known as Tikrapara of Raipur town and they were working as labourers. At one time deceased ramu stole Rs. 300 and some clothes of the accused-appellant and ran away. It was on 8-1-1975 that the accused-appellant succeeded in tracing him out while he was sitting with some beggars near Gujrathi Dharmshala in the town. When the accused-appellant demanded his money and the clothes, the deceased refused to give them back. In the night, both the accused-appellant and the deceased slept in the outer verandah of a vacant house under construction near that Dharmashala. According to the prosecution, on 19-1-1975 at about 5. 30 A. M. while the deceased was sleeping, the accused-appellant struck him with an axe resulting in his death sometime later The accused-appellant then went to the police-station Ganj carrying with him the axe (Art. A) and himself lodged the first information report (Ex. P-1) at about 6. 15 A. M. and also produced the axe (Art. A ). The police seized the axe from his possession vide seizure memo. (Ex. P-2 ). In pursuance of the statement made in the first information report (Ex. P-1) the police party went to the place of incident and found that deceased Ramu was in an unconscious state and while he was being taken to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Dr. J. L. Shrivastava (P. W. 13), who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, found as many as 9 incised wounds on different parts of the body and one abrasion on the right leg. He was of the opinion that injury nos. 1 to 9 could be caused by means of a hard and sharp object like an axe (Art. A ). As regards the 10th injury he was of the view that it could be by friction against a hard and blunt object. He was further of opinion that the death was due to multiple incised wounds and injury to the brain. His postmortem report is Ex. P-16. The accused-appellant was thus prosecuted for having committed murder of the deceased.

(3.) IN defence, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.