STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RAGHUNANDAN ALIAS BANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Cr.P.C") has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 11.4.1997 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.138/95 acquitting the accused from the charge under Section 302 of the IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms Act against which leave to appeal was filed which was granted by this Court, however, this appeal has been registered.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution on 6.8.1995, the deceased Kashiram @ Toofan visited Dhabla Society to purchase kerosene oil where Nandu (PW1) and Shankar Nai were distributing the same. At about 2:30 p.m. in the noon, when complainant Bhai Das (PW4) was coming back to his home to have lunch, he saw Raghunandan @ Banlal (appellant) was abusing his brother Kashiram. On asking why he is abusing him, the accused inflicted a knife blow on deceased Kashiram due to which, he fell down. Complainant Bhai Das (PW4) reached near the body of the deceased and saw that the blood was oozing out from his body on account of knife blow. He offered water to the deceased. At that time, Dharam Singh (PW5), brother of the complainant came there, who saw the accused going back with knife in his hand. At the time of incident, Padam Singh (PW8), Balbahadur Singh, Mahendra Singh and various other persons reached on the spot. The FIR Ex.P/2 was lodged by Bhai Das (PW4). On the basis of the said F.I.R. and on reaching on the spot, the investigation was completed and challan was filed for offence under section 302 of the IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and section 25 of the Arms Act. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed before the said Court where charges were framed. Thereafter, the accused has taken a defence of false implication and pleaded that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident and brought two defence witnesses Babulal (DW1) and Balbahadur Singh (DW2) in his defence.

(3.) Learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence in para-9 of the judgment found that the presence of the eyewitness Bhai Das is doubtful, in-fact, he is not a witness of the incident. Other eye-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The Court further observed that looking to the testimony of Jagdish Parmar (PW16) and his statement Ex.P/20 and Investigating Officer C.L. Sonkar (PW17), presence of Bhai Das on the spot is doubtful because he is the brother of the deceased, therefore, he is stating the incorrect story showing himself as eye-witness. The Court after perusal of the statement of the doctor was of the opinion that the allegation of assault do not corroborate from the cause of death as opined by doctor, therefore, for both the reasons, acquitted the accused.