Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) by setting aside the judgment of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara who had convicted the accused-respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act). Life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively were awarded. Accused was charged for having committed the murder of his nephew Mangalu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased).
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as under: On 19.8.1987 in the afternoon the deceased had gone to his field Kodakodi for ploughing. The respondent who happened to be uncle of deceased dissuaded the deceased from ploughing the field. But the deceased continued to plough the field. The respondent fired at the deceased from his muzzle loading gun. The deceased after sustaining the injury fell on the ground. The respondent rushed to his village and narrated about the incident to Ramprasad (PW-3), Maresha (PW-8) and other villagers that he had shot the deceased, whereupon the complainant Jangalu (PW-1) and his father Bhagan Singh (PW-5), Doulot (PW-6) and Maresha (PW-8) went to the field and saw the deceased lying injured. When the deceased was being brought to his house he died on the way. The complainant Jangalu along with others went to the police station and lodged FIR (Ex.P-10) on 21-8-1987 and investigation proceeded. On the memorandum of the respondent (Ex.P-4) muzzle loading gun was recovered and seized vide Ex.P-5. The police also seized blood stained clothes of the respondent and sent the seized articles to the FSL, Sagar for chemical examination and report. After receipt of the report of the chemical examiner (Ex. P-11) and completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance of the offence was accordingly taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial. The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses at the trial. The defence was of false implication on account of the family feud to the land dispute. The trial Court disbelieved the claim of recovery of gun. It, however, held that the extra-judicial confession before complainant Jangalu (PW-1), Ramprasad (PW-3) and Maresha (PW-8) was clearly acceptable and accordingly convicted the accused as afore-stated.
(3.) Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. Primary stand before the High Court was that the so called extra judicial confession was not believable. The prosecution version is totally inconsistent. No explanation has been offered for the delay in lodging the First Information Report. The High Court found that the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is clearly unacceptable and accordingly directed acquittal as noted above.;