AJAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted is ST No. 38/87 by judgment dated 1.2.1989 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The charge found established against him is that he committed murder of his wife Smt. Babitabai on 23.12.1986 at about 3 -45 p.m. by giving blows to her with a Gadasa and caused 3 injuries on various parts of the body including neck and cut vital parts resulting in her death.

(2.) THE finding of the trial Court is mainly based on the testimony of PW 8 Halkibai, PW 9 Shantibai, PW 10 Santosh, brother of the deceased aged about 10 years, and PW 11 Motilal father of the deceased who lodged the FIR. The murder was committed in the house of Motilal where the deceased was at the relevant time and where the accused had gone that day. Babita died at the spot at once as a result of the injuries. PW 8 and PW 9 asserted having seen the accused striking the deceased with Gadasa while PW 10 only said that the fact was told to him by Halkibai and Shanti as he found his sister Babita lying dead. There is further circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial Court that is on arrest of the accused on 24.12.1986 at about 6 -30 p.m., the pent and bush -shirt of the accused were taken into possession and were sent to chemical examiner and serologist as per reports Ex. P -21 and P -22 these were found to be stained with human blood. The autopsy surgeon's report indicated 3 injuries with sharp edged weapon on the neck and shoulder part of the body of the deceased. These injuries had cut spinal vertebra No. 3 on the right side of the neck and also cut acromion process of scapuls. The death was caused due to shock resulting from the haemorrhage from the injuries. The FIR Ex. P -13 was lodged by Motilal on 23.6.1986 at 5 p.m. i.e. within 2 hours of the incident. In this the accused was named as the author of the crime.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant during the argument asserted that at pre -trial stage the accused had been sent to mental hospital Gwalior and remained there for a year and thereafter he was tried when he was found fit to be tried and of sound mind which resulted into present conviction. We find that no defence was taken by the accused during the trial that at the relevant time of offence he was suffering from any mental infirmity or he did not understand the nature of his action. That defence was not suggested to neither any witness nor taken even in statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC.