The main legal point established is the confirmation of the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, based on the evidence presented in the case.

ORDER

1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 20 th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2003 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment.

The facts in brief are as follows:-

On 8 th September, 2001 at about 3.00 p.m. in village Raghunathgad, District Rewa, appellant Krishna Bahadur along with Vishnu and Dinesh had given a beating to the complainant's brother-in-law Sanath Kumar. Complainant's husband had taken him to Hanumana Police Station for lodging the report. Complainant Savita, her father-in-law Jagdish Prasad (the deceased), daughter Krishna Kumar and son Dayashankar @ Babbu had also escorted them up to Ghogum. While they were returning back from Ghogum to their house at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening near thehouse of Sobhnath, appellant and other co-accused including the absconding accused Mithailal emerged there and they were armed with lathis. Appellant Krishna Bahadur abused and challenged them that they have gone to file complaint against them, let us finish them today. The complainant out of fear fled towards the field along with her son and daughter. The father in law of the complainant Jagdish Prasad was lagged behind and the accused party started assaulting him. The accused gave one lathi blow on his head and absconding accused Mithai Lal gave a lathi blow on his neck to which Jagdish Prasad collapsed. When Jagdish Prasad fell down, appellant and other co-accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathis and kicks. Jagdish Prasad had a head injury during the assault and he was unconscious with bleeding from head injury. On complainant's shouting for help from the field, the appellant and other co-accused persons escaped and ran away. While he was being taken away to Hanumana, he succumbed to his injuries at about 10.00 p.m. Complainant lodged FIR at Police Station Hanumana. On the basis of the report of the complainant, Crime No.133/2001 under Section 147, 148, 302, 149 of IPC was registered. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The accused Mithai Lal was declared as absconder. Appellant and all other co-accused persons, except absconding accused Mithailal, were put to trial. Appellant as well as other co-accused abjured the guilty and pleaded false implication and they also took plea of alibi.

2. The Trial Court by other dated 28 th January, 2003 on appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case extended the benefit of doubt to all the other accused persons except the appellant and found the appellant guilty of committing murder of Jagdish Prasad and as such convicted him under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default imprisonment for six months.

3. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant has preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court after going through the entire record came to the conclusion that the trial court committed no error in finding the appellant guilty for committing murder of Jagdish Prasad and convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant is now before us.

5. We have heard the learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh and perused the record of the case.

6. Having gone through the entire evidence on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is however brought to our notice that the appellant was granted bail on 18 th February, 2013 and till that date he has undergone sixteen years, six months and twenty days imprisonment. Since we have dismissed the appeal, the bail granted to the appellant by order dated 18 th February, 2013 stands cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender.

7. The