CHHINGARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 29. 1. 1998 passed by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial no. 26/96 whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and on failure to pay fine amount, to suffer further one year R. I.

(2.) AS per prosecution, on 19. 5. 1995 at around 1. 40, in the noon, one Bhagwat singh informed the police station Kolaras that the dead-body of Sewak Singh raghuvanshi S/o Bholaram Raghuvanshi, aged 28 years, is lying in the well of bholaram. On the basis of this information, merg No. 14/95 was registered by P. S. Kolaras and the matter was investigated. The statement of Bhagwat Singh was recorded. Bhagwat Singh informed that he is cousin brother of Sewak Ram. He stated that on 18. 5. 1995 in the morning, Sewak told him that he will go to take feast in some party and when he will come back he will bring labour for cleaning his well which became dirty due to falling of waste materials and leaves in it. On 18. 5. 1995, when Sewak was not available in the village, his family members tried to search him in the village as well as in the adjoining places. On 19. 5. 1995 when Bholaram went to his well to search Sewak then he found that the body of Sewak was lying in the well. Thereafter, the dead-body was recovered from the well and Panchnama Lash and spot-map were prepared. The dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. Crime No. 103/95 was registered and the matter was investigated and after investigation, challan was filed.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution is that one amol Singh (PW10), who is father-in-law of the deceased Sewak, on 18. 5. 1995 when he was passing through the well of Bholram, he noticed that appellant Chhinga was throwing stones in the well and one Bhallu who has been acquitted by the trial court, was making exhortation that he be killed. Thereafter, Amol Singh came back to the village and stayed in the house of Sardar singh and has not narrated the story to anyone else. It was also the case of the prosecution that appellant Chhingaram made an extra-judicial confession to Pappu (PW3)and Mansingh (PW6) regarding commission of murder of the deceased by him. The trial court after considering the evidence of amolsingh (PW10), Pappu (PW3) and mansingh (PW6) found that even if it is considered that Amol Singh was not the eyewitness, but he is witness of the incident that on 18. 5. 1995 the appellant Chhingaram was throwing stones in the well and another accused Bhallu was making exhortation to kill the deceased and also considered the evidence of extra-judicial confession made to both the witnesses Pappu (PW3) and mansingh (PW6) and found that the appellant is guilty for committing murder of the deceased and therefore convicted and sentenced him as stated above. However, the trial court acquitted co-accused Ballu as the allegation regarding exhortation was not found proved against him and further held that there is no evidence of extra-judicial confession against him. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.