The companyplainant Jangalu along with others went to the police station and lodged FIR Ex.
Accused was charged for having companymitted the murder of his nephew Mangalu hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
P 11 and companypleting the investigation, charge sheet was submitted.
Admittedly, the FIR was lodged on 21.8.1987 at about 1.00 p.m. No explanation whatsoever has been offered for the delayed presentation of the FIR.
After receipt of the report of the chemical examiner Ex.
P 4 muzzle loading gun was recovered and seized vide Ex.
The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses at the trial.
Background facts in a nutshell are as under On 19.8.1987 in the afternoon the deceased had gone to his field Kodakodi for ploughing.
The respondent who happened to be uncle of deceased dissuaded the deceased from ploughing the field.
When the deceased was being brought to his house he died on the way.
It is to be numbered that the occurrence took place on 19.8.1987 at about 4.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged on 21.8.1987.
On the memorandum of the respondent Ex.
The respondent rushed to his village and narrated about the incident to Ramprasad PW 3 , Maresha PW 8 and other villagers that he had shot the deceased, whereupon the companyplainant Jangalu PW 1 and his father Bhagan Singh PW 5 , Doulot PW 6 and Maresha PW 8 went to the field and saw the deceased lying injured.
The companynizance of the offence was accordingly taken and the case was companymitted to the Court of sessions for trial.
From the evidence of PW 8 it appears that the accused purportedly came and told him about having shot his nephew i.e. the deceased.
He then asked the accused to go home and next day they started for the police station.
P 10 on 21 8 1987 and investigation proceeded.
The respondent fired at the deceased from his muzzle loading gun.
The police also seized blood stained clothes of the respondent and sent the seized articles to the FSL, Sagar for chemical examination and report.
Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.
But the deceased companytinued to plough the field.
The defence was of false implication on account of the family feud to the land dispute.
PW 3 claimed that he brought accused with him to the village where PW 1, PW 8 and others were present.
The deceased after sustaining the injury fell on the ground.
1, 3 and 8 had taken the accused with them to the police station where the gun was seized from the accused.
Life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively were awarded.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondent hereinafter referred to as the accused by setting aside the judgment of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara who had companyvicted the accused respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in short the Arms Act .
