IMPORTANT POINT
Deposition of eye-witness is required to be considered as a whole and it cannot be in a particular part or sequence.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

Leave granted.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1244/2011, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein-Jad Bai and has acquitted her for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) by observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the case of common intention against her, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.

2. The respondent herein and the co-accused-husband and son of the respondent, all were tried and ultimately convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC for having killed Vesta, the deceased.

3. That an FIR was lodged by one Nanbai-wife of the deceased at the Police Station Nanpur, alleging that on the Diwali night at about 10:00 or 11:00 pm the elder brother of her husband (Jeth)-accused No. 1-Sekadiya and his son Mukesh-accused No. 2 came to her house to call her husband saying that there had been cooked ‘Murga’ in their house. According to the complainant, her husband-Vesta went along with accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. According to the complainant after sometime, she heard the voice of crying/scream of her husband and she immediately rushed to the house of her Jeth- accused No. 1-Sekadiya and she saw in the light of electricity that accused No. 3-Jethani (wife of accused No. 1-Sekadiya) had caught hold her husband-Vesta and accused No. 1 assaulted her husband by Axe on the head, due to which Vesta fell down. As per the case of the prosecution, the husband of the complainant-Vesta died due to injuries from the axe. According to the prosecution there was a land dispute and therefore the accused persons killed the deceased by calling him at their house. According to the prosecution the accused persons committed the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore all of them claimed to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. To prove the charge against accused the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses out of which Nanbai PW-1 was the eye-witness. The prosecution also brought on record the documentary evidences including the medical evidence through various witnesses. On closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the Sarpanch due to enmity of election. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court held all the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, all the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and has acquitted the respondent herein-original accused No. 3-Jad Bai, wife of original accused No. 1, however, dismissed the appeal qua original accused Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent herein-Jad Bai, original accused No. 3, the State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.

6. Shri Yashraj Singh Bundela, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a very serious error in acquitting the respondent here