1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE (DIVISION BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE S.K.SETH AND Mr. JUSTICE M.C.GARG) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1007 of 2004 Kalusingh @ Naharsingh S/o Sursingh Bhilala aged 35 years Occupation-Labour, R/o Dhabada wadi P.S. Barwani,Dist. Barwani. ......Appellant Vs. State of M.P. through Police Station, Barwani. .....Respondent JUDGMENT ( Delivered on 11 th November 2011 ) Per Seth, J:- Appellant was charged and tried for an offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Penal Code. By the impugned judgment, trial Court has found him guilty and accordingly sentenced him for life. 2. Facts are quite simple. As per prosecution story, incident took place at about 4 pm in the afternoon of 16.11.2003. On the fateful day, when Subhan (since deceased) was returning home from his agriculture field, he was attacked by the appellant with a bow and arrow. The arrow shot struck the deceased below the left eye. Hearing the outcry, Sakharam and Guman rushed to 2 the spot and found Subhan in injured condition. Immediately Subhan was taken to the Civil Hospital Badwani for treatment and Sakharam went and lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P.1) in the Police Station Badwani. Around 7 pm same evening, Subhan succumbed to injury; therefore Merg intimation was sent to the Police Station, which set the investigation rolling. 3. After taking usual steps like holding inquest, enquiry and post mortem, etc. investigation was completed and the charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried; therefore, he was committed to face the trial. 4. Perusal of evidence on record show that the fact that deceased died an unnatural death is not disputed. Evidence of Dr. Mohan Gupta (P.W.10) and Dr Kailash Malviya (P.W.8) on this aspect of the matter is not seriously questioned. Dr. Gupta (P.W.10) was the first to examine the deceased and injury sustained by him. The M.L.C. report is Ex.P.13. Later on, same day Subhan succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. The post- mortem Report is Ex.P.11. These two documents (Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.13) lend support to each other and are in line with the ocular evidence. It is clear that deceased had sustained an arrow injury (penetrating wound) on the left side of the bridge of nose through orbit up to ‘optic foramina’. The ante-mortem injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3 5. Now the question is whether appellant caused the fatal injury which led to the death of Subhan. The evidence of Sakharam (P.W.1), Guman (P.W. 2) and Vikram (P.W.3) is material in this regard. Sakharam is the eye witness and Guman and Vikram reached the spot immediately after the incident. Sakharam(P.W.1) and Vikram(P.W.3) are the sons whereas Guman (P.W.2) is the brother of the deceased. They reside in the same village. Sakharam and deceased were working in their agriculture field. Sakharam stayed back while deceased was returning home. Sakharam heard the appellant remonstrating with the deceased over the previous police report lodged by the deceased against appellant and saw the arrow shot dispatched by the appellant and hitting the deceased. He immediately rushed to the spot and also saw the appellant running away from the scene of crime. Immediately he took his father to the Civil Hospital Badwani where Dr. Gupta after examination treated the injury before Subhan breathed his last after some time. Same is version of Guman (P.W.2) and Vikram (P.W.3). Except for few minor contradictions, which are quite natural, nothing substantial was brought out in their cross-examination to doubt their testimony. The minor discrepancies are not sufficient to detract from the substantial evidence of the eye witnesses, who have been consistent on the major issues regarding the incident. 6. At trial, learned Sessions Judge, accepted the prosecution evidence and found the appellant guilty of offences charged against him. 4 Nothing could be shown from the side of the defense, which could lead to an inference that the incident did not occur at the place and at the time, when it is said to have occurred, as a consequence of which it could possibly be said that accused has been falsely implicated, on suspicion or because of enmity. When there is direct evidence, such arguments cannot be entertained unless supported by strong evidence. 7. Thus, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence. ( S.K. SETH ) ( M.C.GARG ) Judge Judge BDJ