Bhaulal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

In light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh Vs. State of Utter Pradesh, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2439, the

appeal is heard finally.

The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 29.03.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T. No.07/2006,

thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 304 (part-II) of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 6 months.

In short, the prosecution story is that complainant Ramadhari Teli had lodged a report at Police Station Lanji, District Balaghat, that on

22.10.2005, his wife Lalita Bai and her two co-worker namely Purai Bai and Rukhma Bai were gone to made an agriculture field by putting soil,

which is adjacent to the land of real brother appellant Bhaulal. He further said that his wife and two co-worker were putting some soil in the field, it

is alleged that at about 01:00 p.m. (in the noon), appellant Bhaulal, the real brother of the complainant started abusing Lalita Bai. He further said

that appellant Bhaulal had assaulted Lalita Bai with axe, in between the co-worker ran away and informed the complainant, who reached the spot

and took her to Lanji Hospital and the report was lodged with the police. On report made by the complainant, an offence under Section 307 of the

IPC had been registered against the appellant. Thereafter, due to serious nature of injuries of Lalita Bai, she was shifted from the Government

Hospital Lanji to Dr. Gautam Private Hospital Nagpur and from there she was discharged and when she was on the way to Lanji, she died.

Thereafter, the marg intimation was registered by the police Lanji and ivestigation has been started and the challan has been filed under Section

302 of the IPC against the appellant before the Sessions Court and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Judtge after

examining the witnesses convicted the appellant for committing an offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of 10

years. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

During the pendency of the trial, the prosecution has examined the eye witnesses Sukma Bai (PW-2) and Purai Bai (PW-10) and the on the

basis of the statements of these witnesses, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for committing an offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the

IPC. I have heard learned Government Advocate and perused the record as well as judgment passed by the trial Court.

On perusal of the record as well as the judgment, I found that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment after appreciating the overall

evidence produced by the prosecution, it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction awarded by

the trial Court is hereby upheld. However, as the appellant has already completed the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, therefore, no further

orders are required to be passed regarding the jail sentence.