JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has filed present criminal under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ' Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment dated 04/05/2000 passed in Sessions Trial no. 89/1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304(part-II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of six months.

2. Prosecution case in short is that on 06/04/1999 at about 6-7 a.m. complainant Mansingh along with deceased Babulal went to their field situated at village Tanda. Near their field, field of Devisingh was also situated. Appellant Narayansingh, co-accused Kamalsingh and Devisingh came there. A mango tree was situated in the field of the deceased Babulal. By passing cart of the accused persons, some branches of mango tree were broken. The deceased objected and on this, appellant Narayan Singh inflicted 3-4 injuries by his stick, due to which, the deceased fell down unconsciously.

The appellant Narayansingh and other co-accused persons fled away from the spot. The deceased Babulal was taken to District Hospital, Shajapur and got admitted there. Complainant Mansingh lodged FIR at police station - Shajapur. After primary treatment, the deceased was referred to M.Y. Hospital, Indore, but during treatment, on 12/04/1999, he succumbed to death. Accordingly, merg case no.22/1999 was registered at police station - Sanyogitaganj, Indore. Dr. Ravindra Choudhary (PW-8) conducted postmortem of the deceased and opined that the deceased died of coma due to head injuries. Fracture of vault of skull was found. FIR was registered against the present appellant and other co-accused persons. The Investigating Officer Bhanuprakash Samadhiya (PW-10) prepared spot map; arrested present appellant and a wooden stick was recovered from the possession of the appellant. As per query report, the fracture of skull may be caused by such wooden stick.

3. After completing the entire investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Shajapur, which later on, was transferred to the Special Judge, (Additional Sessions Judge), Shajapur. The Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, on the basis of allegations made in the charge- sheet, framed the charges under sections 302 of IPC, in alternate section 302/34 of IPC. Present appellant and other co- accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring charges, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and placed the documents i.e. Ex-P/1 to Ex-P/20 on record. The defence of the appellant and other co-accused persons are of false implications and some defence was also taken in their statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C, but they did not examine any witness as defence witness. After completion of the trial, the trial Court, on appreciation of evidence available, passed the impugned judgment. Accordingly, co-accused Kamalsingh and Devisingh were acquitted from all the charges, while convicting present appellant under section 304(Part-II) of IPC and sentencing as stated herein above.

4. Present appellant has preferred present appeal on several grounds by stating that the judgment passed by the trial court is erroneous in facts and law. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has examined only interested witness for the incident. The complainant is the sole witness of the incident, hence his evidence ought to be scrutinized reasonably, but the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the complainant Mansingh (PW-1) has inimical terms with the appellant. There are so many material contradictions, omissions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, hence the benefit of doubt ought to have given to the appellant. The trial Court has i