Narendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the Case of Bani Singh & others vs. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, the matter has

been heard in absence of counsel of the appellant.

The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 30/12/2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial

No.162/2005 thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC with R.I. for 10 years and fine of

Rs.1000/- in default to pay fine, further RI for 3 months.

In short the prosecution story is that on 07/06/2005 at about 2 O''clock, Smt. Budhdi Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased Ramlal called her

husband to take launch at Hair Cutting Shop and she saw that appellant was causing injury to her husband by scissor and due to this injury Ramlal

fell down. She came to rescue her husband then appellant ran away to village side with scissor. Thereafter the wife of the deceased has lodged an

FIR at Police Station Barhi. The Police has registered a case against the appellant and after completion of the investigation, the challan has been

filed before the competent Court. Since the matter is under trial to the Court of Session, therefore, the same was committed to the Sessions Court

from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.

During the trial, the prosecution has examined number of witnesses and on the basis of statement of Budhdi Bai (PW-1), Narendra Singh (PW-

2), Jhukki (PW-3) who is supported by Ravindra Kumar Sonkar (PW-4) and Dr. Rajkumar Jain (PW-7, the trial Court has convicted the

appellant for committing an offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC.

After going through the order as well as the evidence adduced by the witnesses, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the trial Court is just

and proper, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere into the findings given by the Sessions Court. The conviction of the appellant imposed

by the trial Court is hereby upheld. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant was not enlarged on bail and he has already completed the jail

sentence of seven years, therefore, no further orders for conviction is required to be passed.

Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.