Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 485 (MP)

Dhulia v. State of M. P.

1978-06-09

P.D.MULYE, S.S.SHARMA

body1978
Short Note : 1. The deceased Sakuda, a young boy was the brother of Bhurabai and had gone to his sister at village Chhoti Mandali along with his father Deepa since about a week before the date of the incident which occurred on 23-1-1975 at about 6 or 7 P. M. in the evening. On that day when Lala (P. W. 2), Dhuthia (P. W. 3), and Walia alias Walchand (P. W. 6) were sitting under the dagla in front of his house, the appellant also came there from his house with a loaded gun and sat on the cot near Dhuthia and Walia. Then he aimed the gun and fired at Lala in the meanwhile Sukda came out of the hut and had stood near Lala and due to the gun shot it was Sakuda who was injured. Thereafter the appellant went home with his gun. Held : Bhurabai (P. W. 1) who is the sister of the deceased and Lala (P. W. 2) have stated that the appellant did not put the gun on the ground but fired a shot after aiming it. There is no evidence to indicate that the gun fell down and got fired accidentally. There appears no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Lala and Bhurabai, which is consistent and reliable. Admittedly, there was no enmity between the deceased and the appellant and the evidence does not indicate that it was due to an accident that Sakuda was injured. 2. In the dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable Chhotelal (P. W. 12) as well as Dr. Shukla (P. W. 13) the deceased Sakuda has categorically stated that it was the appellant who fired the gun shot after aiming at him. This dying declaration also corroborates the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 3. The gun used in the commission of the offence was admittedly seized from the possession of the appellant himself and in his statement also he has admitted his presence on the spot at the relevant time and that it is further stated that the loaded gun went off accidentally due to which Sakuda was injured. It is true that there was no motive in killing Sakuda but in the presence of the evidence of eye-witnesses motive does not necessarily remain an important factor for consideration. Appeal dismissed.