MUNNIBAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the aforesaid appeals are arising out of one and the same impugned judgment, hence same are taken up together and dispose of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellants have filed their respective Criminal Appeals aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order dated 28-1-2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No. 246/1998 whereby convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC, sentenced each appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one month. THE prosecution case as placed before the Trial Court in short runs as under :?

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for appellants has submitted that appellant No. 1 Naresh sustained injury on his head, a lacerated wound caused by deceased Anil by iron rod/pipe. He was taken to the police station from the spot by the public and medically examined on the same day by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Garg (D. W. 1) and he was treated in jail ward by Dr. Ghanshyam (D.W. 2). According to Dr. Ghanshyam, injury sustained on head by Naresh was grievous in nature and he was admitted for five days. It is also contended that though prosecution witnesses admitted sustaining of injury by appellant Naresh in the same incident but they have failed to explain as to how and who caused this injury except Navin @ Nabbu (P.W. 5), therefore, appellant is entitled to get benefit of exception of the provisions as enumerated in Sections 96 to 100, acting in right of private defence of his own person. It is also argued that evidence against rest of the appellants Narayan, Mahesh @ Kalu and Munnibai is not sufficient to base conviction and they are entitled to get benefit of doubt.