Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 289 (MP)

PREM SINGH ALIAS SUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

1988-11-22

B.C.VARMA, RAM PAL SINGH

body1988
B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Prem Singh alias Suman Singh with one Hernial was prosecuted before the lind Addi. Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, while the appellant was charged for having committed murder of one Bhola, Hemlal (acquitted) was charged for bitting cheek of Sahodari Bai (P. W. 16) and of attempting to commit rape upon Shyamkali (P. W. 15 ). The appellant Prem Singh has been held guilty and, therefore, has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hemlal has been acquitted. ( 2 ) THE incident is alleged to have occurred at night between 17th and 18th of July, 1983. According to the prosecution, the two sisters i. e. Shyamkali (P. W. 15) and Sahodri Bai (P. W. 16) were sleeping in the house of their grand-father Bhola, the deceased. Bhola was on the other cot at a distance of about 4 or 5 feet from them. It is alleged that the appellant Prem Singh and other accused Hemlal entered into the house of Bhola. These two witnesses, woke-up and Shyamkali shouted to wake up her grand-father Bhola. The prosecution alleged that at this the appellant Prem Singh went near the cot of Bhola and strengulated him to death. Shyamkali was dragged to a Mahua tree where Hemlal attempted to commit rape on her but somehow she escaped but Sahodri Bai fell a pray and acquitted accused Hernial bit her on the cheek. The girl then came home and found their grand-father dead. Instead of any of these two girls going to make the report, it is the appellant Prern Singh who, according to the prosecution, went and lodged the first information report (Ex. P/14 ). on the basis of which investigation was taken up. Bholas body was subjected to post-mortem examination which was performed by Dr. G. L. Arora (P. W. 14) Sahodri Bai was also examined for the injury. Sorne seizures were effected. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution story only against the appellant Prem Singh and held the remaining part of the story relating to the charges against Hemlal as not proved. The death of Bhola, of course, has been found to be homicidal. Prem Singh has appealed against his aforesaid conviction. Sorne seizures were effected. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution story only against the appellant Prem Singh and held the remaining part of the story relating to the charges against Hemlal as not proved. The death of Bhola, of course, has been found to be homicidal. Prem Singh has appealed against his aforesaid conviction. ( 3 ) AFTER exarnining the entire record and hearing the Government Advocate for the respondent/state (none appeared at the time of hearing for the appellant) we have formed an opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed. A great suspicion as to the correctness of the prosecution story arises in the view of the evidence of Dr. Arora (P. W. 14), It is neither the case of the prosecution nor has the two girls Shyamkali (P. W. 15) and Sahodri Bai (P. W. 16) stated at any stage that Bhola was assaulted on head by any hard or blunt object. Nobody told the Court that Bhola suffered any head injury. Strangely, however, we find from the post mortern report (Ex. P/13) which has been proved by Dr. Arora (P. W. 14) that below the skull and on the right side of brain blood was present. The head injury was caused by hard and blunt object leading to coma. Abrasion was also noticed over the neck and the tongue was proceeding. This led to asphyxia. In the witness box he stated that the head and neck injuries were sufficient to cause death and were ante-rnortem and in his final analysis opined that Bhola died due to asphyxia resulting frorn strangulation. His evidence, thus, discloses that the head injury was also sufficient to cause death. Since nobody has stated that Bhola ever received any head injury at the tirne of incident, one is left in doubt as to the true picture of the incident. This, in our opinion, has cast a serious dent in the prosecution story. ( 4 ) TWO daughters of deceased Bhola i. e. Shyamkali (P. W. 15) and Sahodri Bai (P. W. 16) who claimed to be eye witnesses of the incident, did, not disclose this fact of alleged strangulation of his grand-father by the appellant Prem Singh to anyone for two or three days. It is not that they did not meet people or that they were not asked. They say that because of the appellants fear they kept silent. It is not that they did not meet people or that they were not asked. They say that because of the appellants fear they kept silent. They had made a peculiar statement in Court that it is only when the police threatened thern to disclose the names of the culprit, that they came out implicating the appellant. To us this explanation about their remaining silent for two or three days is absolutely got up and false. It cannot be ruled out that these two girls have implicated the appellant only at the asking of the somebody. It is also noteworthy that the report of the incident was lodged by the appellant himself. Having committed the said crime and having been noticed by the two girls, it appears unusual that the appellant himself would go to lodge the report. His going to make the report immediately after the incident is yet another factor which militates against the appellant being the author of the crime. ( 5 ) THE above circurnstances have not been given their due weight by the Second Addi. Sessions Judge. The rnedical evidence leaves one in doubt if the strangulation was the only cause of death and not the head injury. The unexplained silence of these two girls i. e. Shyamkali (P. W. 15) and Sahodri Bai (P. W. 16) for two-three days has been trained by the lower Court rather indifferently. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the above circumstances as shown by us make the prosecution story very doubtful and it is the appellant who caused the death of Bhola. Benefit of this doubt certainly must be given to the appellant. He is entitled to be acquitted. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and his consequent sentence for imprisonment for life are not set aside and he is acquitted. Appeal allowed .