Sunil Patidar S/o Premnarayan Patidar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh @RESPONDEN

Vandana Kasrekar, J

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30/06/2007 passed in S.T. No.33/2007 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur whereby the learned Court has held guilty the appellant for commission an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months RI, the appellant has preferred this present appeal.

Facts in brief are that on 18/01/2008 at 09:00 AM Govindram and his elder brother/Rajendra @ Radheshyam Patidar were sitting in the terrace of Govind, at that time, Mangilal S/o Bhawarlal Sutar, resident of Baskhedi, who doing the work of yarn netting in the Village. Rajendra was having Auto Garage at Narayangarh, therefore, Mangilal came there to discuss regarding purchase of motor-cycle. All three were sat in the terrace and taking Tea, at that relevant point of time, Sunil S/o Premnarayan Patidar came there, armed with iron pipe and assaulted Mangilal Sutar at left side of his temple hitting two-three blows and thrown the iron pipe there only, fled away from the spot, with the result blood oozing from his head and after some time, Mangilal died. After making noise Madanlal Nayak/Chowkidar came there and reported the matter to the police station-Narayangarh on telephone. Police registered crime No.14/2007 under Section 302 of IPC. The police sent the body for postmortem, prepared spot map, collected blood sample from terrace, seized the iron pipe, prepared seizure memo, recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the accused/appellant. After completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet. Appellant was charged under Section 302 of IPC and he abjured his guilt. After taking prosecution evidence and granted opportunity to defend the accused, the learned trial Court considered the evidence and held the offence proved and punished the appellant as stated in para 1.

The appeal is preferred on the ground that judgment and order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court erred in not considering the fact that there is no motive for the appellant to commit murder of Mangilal. The learned trial Court committed error in not considering the material contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The appellant has falsely been implicated in the present matter, therefore, appellant prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set-aside and he be acquitted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and order.

We have considered rival contention of the parties and have perused the record.

The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Dr. Nishant Sharma (PW/1) opined cause of death is head injury, which corroborates the statements of eye-witnesses. Rajendra@ Radheshyam Patidar (PW/7), who is eye-witness has categorically stated that while they were taking Tea with the deceased, at that time, accused-Sunil Patidar came there armed with iron rod, assaulted on the head of Mangilal by three times with the result, Mangilal died on the spot. Govind (PW/8) who is also an eye-witness has stated that he saw the accused by hitting iron rod on the head of Mangilal, who died front of him. Appellant intentionally assaulted Mangilal on the vital part of the body i.e. head, which he repeated two-three times, which shows the motive of appellant to kill the deceased/Mangilal.

Mere averment of the appellant without any supporting evidence cannot be taken as truth. No specific defence has been taken during recording of statements of prosecution witnesses, therefore, raising such question first time in the appeal, is not at all acceptable at this stage.

The trial Court has considered all these evidence and has rightly reached on the conclusion. It was accused who had committed murder on the alleged date, time and place of the incident. Nothing is there to defer from the finding of the trial Court. We are also in agreement with this finding.

Considering the intention of appellant and manner and the way in which the accused came on terrace of Govind, in our considered the the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence. We are not inclined to interfere in the sentence and conviction awarded by the learned trial Court also, hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is maintained.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed being bereft of merits. Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the property is hereby confirmed.