GOKULA MAJHI ALIAS GHOTULU GOND Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused was originally a resident of village Todra of which the deceased was the gountia. He left the village about 15 years ago and settled in the district of Raipur in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He abandoned his land which lay fallow for some years. So the deceased gountia cultivated the same. In the morning of 18 -4 -1964, the accused was found ploughing the land with a plough borrowed from his son -in -law (p.w.7). At about 8 A.M. the deceased noticed the forcible cultivation by the accused. He went to the field and appeared to have lodged a protest. There seems to be some altercation. 'When the deceased was returning, the accused caught hold of his waist and threw him down. With the help of the Tangia (M.O. I) he indiscriminately assaulted the deceased as a result of which the latter met with instantaneous death.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge held that the accused indiscriminately assaulted the deceased with an axe and that the deceased had instantaneous death on the spot. That the death was homicidal as a result of cruel attack on the deceased by infliction of several blows with a sharp cutting axe is not disputed. The only point for consideration is whether the accused killed the deceased.

(3.) WE have heard a number of criminal appeals against the judgments of Sri. R.C. Kar last week. We cannot part with this case without observing that in almost every case we noticed the fact that while the witnesses are confronted under Section 145 , Evidence Act, with their previous statements before the police, the learned possessions Judge does not appear to keep the Case Diary by his side to check up whether in fact contradictions arose. Most often he allows inadmissible questions to be put. The questions that are put to the witnesses do not tally with the statements in the Case Diary and with the questions put to the I.O. It would be profitable to give an illustration. Before the police, Ganesram Mali (p.w.5) stated as follows: