Gopal vs State of M.P.

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 23.01.1995 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial

No.267/91 whereby the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and

awarded sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 04.04.1991 deceased Munshiji was sitting on a bench in front of a betel shop. The appellant was standing

there. He had a talk with one Raghuveer about the examination. Raghuveer told appellant that he would make arrangement so appellant could pass

the examination and for that purpose Rs.1500/- would be required. The deceased told the appellant not to speak loudly because there would be

disturbance in the examination. Thereafter the appellant had inflicted three blows by knife on the stomach of the deceased and ran away. On the

basis of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) report (Ex.P/19) was registered. The police conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The appellant

abjured his guilt during trial. The trial Court held the appellant guilty and convicted him as mentioned above.

There are eye witnesses of the incident. Kripal (PW/1) deposed that on the date of incident, I had gone to take tea at the shop of Ramesh. His

brother Raghuveer was at the shop. In front of a bench deceased Munshiiji was sitting. Appellant was standing behind him. Raghuveer asked the

appellant that whether he had given the examination ? The appellant replied affirmatively. Thereafter, Raghuveer told the appellant that if he would

pay Rs.1500/-, he will secure passing the examination by appellant- Gopal. The deceased told appellant not to disturb because an examination

was going on, in that event the appellant had inflicted three blows of knife on the deceased at his stomach and side. Thereafter, he ran away from

the spot. At round 4.30 p.m. police came there and thereafter, I lodged report Ex.P/1 and signed the same.

Another eye witness Narayan Prasad (PW/2) deposed that I had gone to take tea at the shop. Raghuveer was at the shop. Munshiji was sitting

on a bench in front of the shop. He was a police personnel. The appellant was also there and I had seen that the present appellant had inflicted

three blows on the stomach and side of the deceased. When I shouted appellant ran away from the spot. Thereafter, I went to my house. He

admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex.P/2).

Raghuveer Singh (PW-3) deposed that I was sitting in front of the shop of tea of Ramesh. At that time, appellant came there. Narayan Singh

also came there. Thereafter, Krapal and Ishwari also came there. One Munshiji was sitting on a stand of stone nearby, he was in dress. Appellant

asked me that whether Ramesh had given the examination, I replied affirmatively. Thereafter, he told me that if he would pay him Rs.1500/-, he

would secure that Gopal would clear the examination. Deceased Munshiji told us not to speak loud because examination was going on. After 15 to

20 minutes the appellant had inflicted three blows of knife on the stomach and other parts of the body of deceased Munshiji and he ran away.

Keshari (PW-4) reached at the spot, after appellant ran away he had taken the deceased to Medical College. He deposed that deceased told

me that appellant had inflicted blows of knife at him.

Raghuveer Singh (PW-5) and Kamlesh Kumar (PW-6) were declared hostile.

Dr. D.K. Saklay (PW-8) conducted autopsy of the deceased. He deposed that he noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased:-

(i) Penetrating wound which had run through and through on right hand which was below seven inch of the shoulder 11/2""x1/2""x1/2""x1/4"" depth in

size.

(ii)one incised penetrating wound right side of the chest which was below four inch of right nipple length of the injury 11/2"" and width one inch.

Due to the aforesaid injuries, diaphragm and the membrane of lungs was cut. There was an injury on liver, which was 5"" deep. The liver was

also cut. The injuries were caused by a hard and sharp edged weapon. The injuries were anti-mortem in nature and deceased died due to the

aforesaid injuries.

Mehboob (PW-9) admitted that he signed Ex.P/11, P/12, P/13 and P/14.

Mr. Vinod Kumar Shrivastava (PW-13), Investigating Officer deposed that I was posted there. On the basis of Dehati Nalshi Ex.P/1, report

was lodged. Thereafter, I prepared the spot map, which is Ex.P/3 and singed the same. I seized plain and red earth from the spot vide seizure

memo (Ex.P/2) and signed the same. On the memorandum (Ex.P/11) of appellant one slipper (Ex.P/13) was seized. One shirt and knife were also

seized vide seizure memo P/14, I signed the same. Thereafter, I recorded statements of the witnesses. Appellant was arrested.

From the evidence of eye witnesses PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3, this fact has been proved that the appellant had caused injuries by knife on the

person of the deceased. Dr. D.K. Saklay (PW/8), who performed postmortem of the deceased, verified the fact that he noticed incised injuries on

the person of the body of the deceased which were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. The knife was also seized on the memorandum of

the appellant. The injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased.

The deceased was a police employee, he was assigned duty to see that the examination which was going on at the school be completed

peacefully. He requested the appellant not to make disturbance. In that event the appellant had inflicted repeated blows by knife. He had given

repeated blows of knife at the person of the deceased, who was a police person and assigned the Government duty. The appellant had intention

and motive to kill the deceased. Motive can be developed on the spot also.

In such circumstances, in our opinion the trial Court has rightly convicted. The appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC and awarded the proper sentence. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.

Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are hereby canceled. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court to undergo remaining part of the jail

sentence.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.