IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1326 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

GYANESHWAR S/O SANTOSH PATIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR

1.

GRAM BEHADIYA THANA KHETIYA DISTT BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)

CHOTUMAL S/O SANTOSH PATIL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAJDURI VILLAGE

2.

BEHDIYA, THANA KHETIYA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT ( BY SHRI NAVIN KUMAR SINGH- ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. KHETIYA, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS ( BY SHRI AMIT RAWAL- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This appeal coming on for judgment this day, Justice Vivek Rusia passed the following:

Heard and reserved on : 25.08.2023 Judgment pronounced on :01.09.2023 JUDGMENT With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.95/2016 by 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa Badwani by which the appellants herein have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 and 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant Gyaneshwar has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I.

₹

further sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000/- each and Rs. 200/-.

The facts of the case in short are as under:

[2] On 27.05.2016, Laxma Bai the mother of the complainant Prakash was sitting in the courtyard of his house. Appellant No.1 came there in a drunken condition and started abusing her on the issue of the construction of wall. The complainant came outside the house and objected to it. Appellant No.1 was carrying a wooden stick in his hand and gave a blow on the head of his mother, she started bleeding. At that time appellant No.2 also came and provoked to appellant No.1. Vandhna to kill her. Vicky came there and the appellants left the place . Thereafter they took Laxma Bai to the police station for lodging the report Ex.P/1. Spot map was drawn by Ex.P/2. Laxma Bai was examined by Dr. Sharad Bhandari, who gave report Ex.P/15 and according to him, she was not in a position to give a statement as the injury was dangerous to life. On 28.05.2016, Kailash brought the Laxmabai in dead condition. Information was given to the Police Station. Merg No.09.2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr Sharad Bhandari (PW-13). Appellants were arrested by Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9. On their memorandum stick was issued vide Ex.P/11.

[3] Upon completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court which committed the trial to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.

[4] The trial Court framed charges under Sections 294 and 302/34 of IPC against the appellants and proceeded on trial after they abjured the guilt. The accused / appellants abjured guilt and entered into the trial.

[5] The prosecution in order to bring home the offences examined as many as 15 witnesses and brought on record various documents to prove its case. The statement of the accused / appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication, however, they have not produced any witnesses or exhibited any document in their defence.

[6] After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced vide judgment as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

[7] Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are not assailing the findings recorded by the trial court in respect of date of incident, cause of incident, nature of injury place of crime and their complexity. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there was no intention to kill the Laxma Bai (the deceased). Appellant No.1 in a drunken condition gave a