Ranjeet Singh @ Dara vs State Of M.P

2. The deceased Jayawati was the second wife of Machi Singh. The prosecution version of the tragic episode, leading to the death (murder) of Jayawati (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) has been primarily narrated by Hukum Singh (PW

3. The deceased Jayawati used to reside with her son Hukam Singh (PW 11) at A.H. Sukalya Road on the first floor. Trilochan Singh @ Lucky (PW 12) used to reside on the ground floor with his wife Surendra Kaur @ Poli (PW 1). The appellant was a regular visitor at the house situated at Sukalya. On the morning of 6/9/97, the appellant had gone to Indore from Bhopal by car and reached the house at around 11:30 am. He came in to visit, after parking the car outside. On the same 3 day Jayawati was found dead in the same house around 2 to 3 pm.

5. Soon the senior officials of the Police, on being apprised of the incident, also arrived at the scene of the murder. Hukum Singh (PW 11) gave report Ex P/16 in writing and on the basis thereof Dehati Nalish P/17 was recorded. Summons were issued for holding inquest and inquest report Ex. P/8 was prepared. PW8 was entrusted with the duty of taking the dead body of Jayawati for post mortem examination. At the instance of Trilochan Singh (PW 12) spot map Ex P/20 was prepared. In the presence of Rajesh Dubey (PW 3) and Nanuram (PW 4), the sword was seized from the floor, one gold "bala" lying near the leg of the deceased., the cotton in which the blood was collected, simple cotton, the sheath of the sword lying behind the door, the blood stained bed sheets and pillow cover were seized vide Ex. P/13. Accused was arrested under Memo Ex P/6. His clothes namely shirt, jeans, shoes and the blood removed from his hands were seized vide Ex P/4. 5 Accused was taken to Police Station Heeranagar and case No:

6. By order dated 7/3/2000, the Trial Court convicted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which he had to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No: 469 of 2000 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The High Court vide order dated 13/3/2006 confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant herein has filed the present appeal before this Court.

7. Incised wound - chopped size 4 x 2 x 0.3 cm.

(ms deep) on Lt. Middle finger (dorsum aspect and near base Vgt. 06).

9. Incised wound - 2 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm (ms deep) on Lt. Index finger (Tr.06) mid part and palmer aspect.

Forearm. Present 8 cm above the wrist joint on antro medial.

14. Incised wound 1 x 0.2 x skin deep (4 cm above).

15. Incised wound 7 x 3 x 1 cm on Rt. Forearm present at 5 cm above the wrist joint on post media.

16. 4 Incised wound 4 x 2 cm chopped cut present Rt. Base of thumb and other three 1 cm x 4 cm type x skin deep on Rt. Hand of palmer aspect in one plane.

17. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 0.3 cm (ms. Deep present from Rt. Angle of mouth and runs laterally).

18. We are of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant does not fall within the purview of the aforesaid ratio of law.

20. For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.