Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1106 (MP)

Kunja v. State of M. P.

2003-09-18

S.S.JHA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2003
JUDGMENT Appellant Kunja S/o Pooran is convicted for an offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is alleged that on 14.6.1990 appellant had given three axe blows on the head of deceased Nirpat. FIR was lodged on 15.6.1990 at about 8.30 in the morning. According to the prosecution, on account of raising a hut, dispute arose between appellant Kunja and deceased Nirpat. In the FIR it is mentioned that the incident was witnessed by Khilansingh and Jairam. FIR was lodged by Karansingh. PW 2 Jairam has deposed that appellant was raising a hut. When deceased Nirpat removed the pillar, then appellant Kunja gave an axe blow on the centre of the head, second blow on the back side of skull and third blow above right ear. Then the appellant had caused injury on both the eyes of the deceased and on the chest from the wooden portion of the axe. Thereafter, appellant ran away. However, deposition of PW 2 Jairam is belied by the medical evidence. PW 11 Dr. R.K. Jain who has performed post mortem found a lacerated wound on the centre of skull at parietal region size 2" x 1/2" x bone deep, contusion on the right temporal part measuring 3" x 2" and another contusion on the frontal region. On internal examination, he found fracture of frontal and parietal bones. All the witnesses have deposed that the appellant was armed with an axe. PW 13 Dr. H.S. Mudgal who has examined the injured has deposed that the injuries are caused by hard and blunt object. Even medical report Ex. P-11 also reflects that the deceased had suffered lacerated wound or the contusion. In the said facts of the case, oral testimony is belied by the medical evidence. All the witnesses have specifically deposed that the deceased was assaulted by an axe. None of the witnesses had deposed that the deceased was assaulted from the blunt side of the axe. Considering the material inconsistency in ocular and medical evidence, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Unless prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt, appellant could not be convicted. Considering the facts of the case, as discussed above, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. Unless prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt, appellant could not be convicted. Considering the facts of the case, as discussed above, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond and sureties are discharged.