The judgment establishes the principle that even one injury on a vital part of the body may result in a conviction under Section 302 of IPC, and the nature of the injuries and the reliability of the eye-witnesses are crucial in determining liability for murder.

JUDGMENT :

SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence pronounced by the Sessions Judge, Shajapur in S.T. No. 10/2006 vide judgment dated 28.12.2006, whereby each of the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The prosecution story in short was that on 27.11.2005, Sub-Inspector A.K. Singh (PW-11) of Police Station Barodia, District Shajapur received a telephonic message from Kumer Singh, Sarpanch of Village Lasudiya-Jagmal that a murder had been committed in the village. A.K. Singh (PW-11) arrived at the spot. The witness Jaikunwarbai (PW-9), who is daughter of the deceased Tejubai and who was a married lady, narrated the incident to him and as per her statements on the morning of 27.11.2005, appellant Shaitanbai who lives in neighbourhood and who is aunt of Jaikunwarbai came rushing to the house of Jaikunwarbai who was sitting with her mother Tejubai. Shaitanbai started abusing Tejubai saying that son of Tejubai namely, Mohan had quarrelled with Radheshyam S/o Shaitanbai. At that moment, Jagdish, another S/o Shaitanbai also came and started using filthy and abusive language. Tejubai told them not to abuse but Shaitanbai wielding sharp edged weapon daranta and Jagdish wielding a knife entered the house of Tejubai. Shaitanbai inflicted daranta blow on the chest of Tejubai, who started bleeding and fell on the floor. Babitabai, daughter of Tejuabai then came to rescue but Jagdish stabbed Babitabai with knife and Babitabai also fell upon Tejubai. Then both mother and son duo lunged forward to attack Jaikunwarbai but she fled from her house and then both the assailants also went away. The information of the incident was given to Mohan, brother of Jaikunwarbai who was working in the field. Mohan came to spot and immediately went to inform Kumer Singh, Sarpanch who in turn made telephone call to Sub-Inspector A.K. Singh.

3. The Sub-Inspector, after recording Dehati Nalishi, drew Panchnama, spot-map and recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested both the assailants/appellants and on the basis of their memorandum, seized daranta from Shaitanbai and a knife from Jagdish. The blood stained soil was collected from the spot and blood stained clothes of the appellants were also seized. Both these items were sent to FSL. However, FSL report could not be obtained till the conclusion of the trial and pronouncement of judgment.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the Trial Court read over the charges under Sections 302/34 and 450/34 of IPC to the appellants. Both of them abjured their guilt and have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity.

5. Learned Trial Court went on to examine prosecution witnesses and in all, 11 witnesses were examined and no defence evidence was led and after conclusion of trial, both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.

6. In the appeal, it has been mentioned that due to prior enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated, that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The statements of witnesses are self-contradictory and there are many important omissions and contradictions which have been overlooked, that medical report also does not corroborate statements of witnesses, that compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has not been made and the prosecution was unable to prove spot of the incident and on these grounds, acquittal has been sought.

7. The question for consideration before this Court is whether in view of the grounds taken by the appellants, conviction and sente