Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1122 (MP)

Anand Singh v. State of M. P.

2000-10-12

SHAMBHOO SINGH

body2000
Short Note This appeal is directed by the accused against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1991 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in S.T. No. 277/91 whereby the appellant has been convicted u/s 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to four years R.I. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 3.8.1991 at about 4 p.m. in village Sikarpur the appellant Anand Singh was making fence encircling a mango tree which belonged to the deceased Suresh. The deceased protested and asked the appellant not to cover the mango tree into the fencing. This enraged the appellant and there was altercation and exchange of hot words, and the appellant took out 'Kharaliya' (a small wooden log fitted in bullock cart) and gave one blow which landed on the head of the deceased as a result of which he died. Mehtab Singh (PW-2) saw this incident, he immediately went to Radhabai, wife of the deceased, and narrated the incident to her and thereafter he narrated this incident to Sumaer Singh (PW1), who went to Police Station Nalchha and lodged FIR. SI, Balraj (PW 4) visited the spot. He prepared spot map, Ex.P-2, seized stained and unstained earth vide Ex.P/3. He conducted inquest report and prepared Ex. P/5 and sent the dead body to District Hospital, Dhar where Dr. Mahesh Kumar Dhakad (PW 5) perform postmortem examination on the dead body. He found one lacerated wound 2” x 1/2” x 1/5” on the left parietal region of the dead body. The injury fractured left parietal region. Cause of death was due to head injury. After completion of investigation challan was filed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal. Shri Qyamuddin L/c for the Appellant argued that the learned Trial Judge committed error in putting reliance on the solitary evidence of Mehtab Singh (PW 2). He invited by attention at para 7 of the statement of this witness and contended that the witness admitted that he saw the incident from a distance of 1/2 K.M. and it was not possible for the witness to see the incident from such a long distance. He submitted that offence u/s 304 Part II IPC is not made out, He contended that at the most offence u/s 325 IPC could be made out. He submitted that offence u/s 304 Part II IPC is not made out, He contended that at the most offence u/s 325 IPC could be made out. On the other hand Shri A.Upadhyaya, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned judgment. I considered the arguments advanced by L/c for both sides and perused the record. The prosecution case rests on the sole testimony of Mehtab Singh (PW 2). It has come in his evidence that on the date of incident he was grazing his cattle in his field which is adjacent to the field of the Appellant Anandsingh. The appellant was making fence, the deceased came there and asked the appellant not to engage his mango tree into his fence. On this there was altercation and exchange of hot words. The appellant took out 'Kharaliya' (small log) from the bullock cart and gave blow which landed on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell down. The appellant ran away from there. He went to see the deceased. He found him dead. He went to village and informed Radhabai, the wife of the deceased and thereafter he also narrated the incident to Sumer Singh (PW 1). Bhupendra Singh, Sohan Singh etc. The evidence of Mehtab Singh has been corroborated by Radhabai (PW 3). She deposed that on the date of incident Mehtab Singh came and told her that Anand Singh had killed Suresh. She went on the spot and found him dead. Sumer Singh (PW1) also supported the evidence of Mehtab Singh. His evidence is that after attending meeting of the Bank he returned to the village in the evening. He was told by Mehtab that Appellant Anand had killed Suresh. He narrated him that the deceased was making fence around the mango tree which was opposed by the deceased. On this the appellant gave one 'Kharaliya' blow to the deceased. Sumer Singh lodged FIR, Ex. P-I, on the same day about 11.45 p.m. The medical evidence also supports the prosecution case. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Dhakad (PW 5) who performed postmortem examination on the dead body found one lacerated wound 2” x 1/2” x 1/5” on the left parietal bone. On internal examination he found injury in the brain. He opined that the deceased died due to his injury. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Dhakad (PW 5) who performed postmortem examination on the dead body found one lacerated wound 2” x 1/2” x 1/5” on the left parietal bone. On internal examination he found injury in the brain. He opined that the deceased died due to his injury. As stated above, Mehtab Singh is the sole eye witness and it is settled that conviction can be based on such evidence if it was of sterling quality. I minutely examined the evidence of this witness, I find nothing, on the basis of which his evidence may be discarded. He had no enmity against the appellant nor had any relation with the deceased. In view of above, the learned Trial Judge rightly relied upon this evidence and held that the appellant caused injury on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant u/s 304 part II IPC. The argument of Shri Qyamuddin that offence made out against the appellant is u/s 325 IPC and not u/s 304 part II IPC is not acceptable. Appellant caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head with deadly weapons with great force, it had caused fracture on the left parietal bone. In view of above the appellant has been rightly convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC. Argument of Shri Qyamuddin that looking to the fact that this incident happened 10 years ago and the appellant is attending the Court since then and he had suffered 4, 1/2 months incarceration, therefore, he should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him is not acceptable, in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court is maintained. Bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Trial Court for suffering remaining part of the jail sentence, failing which the Trial Court shall take appropriate steps for arresting and sending him to jail.