DAULAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th November, 2009 passed by Additional Judge of Court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Guna in Sessions Trial No. 231/2009, appellant has preferred this Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. By the impugned judgment, appellant has been held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for Life alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) As per the case of prosecution on 5/4/2009 at about 5 am in the morning at village Thuniya-Kundal when complainant Nepal Singh alongwith his 12 years old son Bhikam Singh went to forest area for collection of Mahua (Bassia Latifolia, a forest produce), then appellant (who was also collecting it) came and tried to obstruct them from collecting Mahua. Nepal Singh intervened on the ground that Mahua is available over Government area, therefore, they can collect it. His son Bhikam Singh started collecting the same, but infuriated by the rejection, appellant Daulat Singh with the intention to kill Bhikam, gave a Farsa blow over the neck of Bhikam Singh, blood oozed out and he succumbed to the injury. Reacting to the shout of Nepal Singh, his brother Rajendra Singh, uncle Chandan Singh and other villagers namely Takhat Singh and Chand Singh rushed to the spot, whereas, meanwhile appellant escaped. On intimation of death, FIR was registered at Police Chauki Maksudangarh, Police Thana Jamner and investigation started. Accused/appellant was arrested and on his information, Farsa was seized alongwith other items. Investigation completed and charge-sheet filed. After committal, matter was referred to the Sessions Court and trial started.

(3.) Appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that because of shared land dispute with complainant party, he has been falsely implicated. Complainant Nepal Singh used to say that one day he would falsely implicate the appellant. In support of its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses whereas; no witness was examined on behalf of appellant in his defence.