Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 264 (MP)

Bhagwandas v. State of M. P.

2000-03-13

RAJEEV GUPTA, USHA SHUKLA

body2000
Appellant Bhagwandas stands convicted under Section 302, IPC, with sentence of imprisonment for life, vide judgment dated 29.12.1986, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 33/86. Short facts. essential for deciding this appeal, are that Smt. Kallo Bai (since deceased) was appellant's wife and there used to be frequent quarrels between the couple on account of day-to-day domestic affairs. Accused Bhagwandas on some such occasions used to physically assault his wife Kallo Bai. In the above background, on 10.9.1985, accused Bhagwandas opened an assault on his wife Kalla Bai by means of a lathi. Her cries attracted Kaushalya Bai (PW 1), Gouri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11) who saw accused Bhagwandas dealing blows on his wife Kallo Bai. The First Information Report (Ex. P-8), about the incident. was lodged by Gulab which gave rise' to the registration of a case at Crime No. 449/85 at Police Station, Sihora, District Jabalpur. After performing the necessary formalities of preparing inquest etc., the body of Kallo Bai was sent for post-mortem ex-amination. The Autopsy Surgeon found as many as 5 external injuries on the body of Kallo Bai, as detailed in post- mortem report (Ex.P-9). In his opinion. the cause of death of Kallo Bai was shock and haemorrhage resulting from the external injuries found on her body. During the course of investigation accused Bhagwandas was arrested and in pursuance to the information given by him under Section 27, of the Evidence Act. a lathi was seized from his possession on 12.9.1985. Police Sihora, after completing the investigation. charge-sheeted accused Bhagwandas for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302. IPC. Accused Bhagwandas adjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. At the trial prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. whereas accused Bhagwandas chose not to examine any witness in his defence. The trial Court. on the ocular and medical evidence led by the prosecution, held it proved that deceased Kallo Bai had sustained as many as 5 external Injuries. on 10.9.1985. and had died a homicidal death. Relying upon the eye-witness account of Kaushulya (PW 1), Gauri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11). which was found corroborated by the other ocular and medical evidence on record, the trial Court held accused Bhagwandas guilty of causing the external injuries on his wife Kallo Bai. resulting in her death. On the above findings. Relying upon the eye-witness account of Kaushulya (PW 1), Gauri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11). which was found corroborated by the other ocular and medical evidence on record, the trial Court held accused Bhagwandas guilty of causing the external injuries on his wife Kallo Bai. resulting in her death. On the above findings. the trial Court convicted accused Bhagwandas under Section 302. IPC, with sentence of imprisonment for life. The appellant's conviction was sought to be challenged on the ground that the case diary statements of the three eye-witnesses were not recorded on the same day but were recorded next day. and as these witnesses claim to have seen the incident of assault on Kallo Bai from a considerable distance, their evidence cannot be relied upon. Shri Ranbir Singh. the learned Panel Lawyer, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of conviction and contended that the evidence of the three eye-witnesses is consistent and stand amply corroborated by the medical evidence on record and as such this appeal against conviction does not warrant any interference. The facts that deceased Kallo Bai had sustained as many as 5 external injuries resulting in her death. on 10.9.1985. and that her death was homicidal in nature were not in dispute at any stage of the trial. That apart. we find overwhelming evidence. ocular and medical. on record in support of the above facts. We. therefore. uphold the finding recorded by the trial Court in that behalf. From the impugned judgment we gather that the appellant's conviction is mainly founded on the eye-witness account of Kaushalya Bai (PW 1). Gauri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11). Of these. Keshar Bai (PW 11) is a close-door neighbour of accused Bhagwandas and she claims to have seen the incident of assault on deceased Kallo Bai as her attention was attracted towards the place of occurrence on account of the hue and cry raised by Kallo Bai. Keshar Bai (PW 11) has deposed that on the fateful day she saw the appellant assaulting his wife Kallo Bai. There is hardly any cross-examination of this eye-witness. Her presence at the time of the incident was quite natural. We find a ring of truth in her evidence. She had no animus to depose falsely against the appellant. Deposing in line with the evidence of Keshar Bai (PW 11). There is hardly any cross-examination of this eye-witness. Her presence at the time of the incident was quite natural. We find a ring of truth in her evidence. She had no animus to depose falsely against the appellant. Deposing in line with the evidence of Keshar Bai (PW 11). Kaushalya Bai (PW 1) and Gauri Bai (PW 2) have also categorically stated that on the fateful day appellant Bhagwandas was dealing blows on his wife Kallo Bai by means of a larhi. Nothing could be brought out in the cross-examination of these eye-witnesses which may render their evidence unworthy of credence. The evidence of Kaushalya Bai (PW 1). Gauri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11) stand corroborated by the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses examined at the trial. The medical evidence of Dr. R.K. Choudhary (PW 7) further corroborates the eye-witness account of these three eye-witnesses as the 5 external injuries found on the body of deceased Kallo Bai. in the opinion of the Doctor. could have been caused by means of a hard and blunt object like larhi. Thus. on a reappreciation of the entire evidence on record. we are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of Kaushalya Bai (PW 1). Gauri Bai (PW 2) and Keshar Bai (PW 11) in holding accused Bhagwandas guilty of causing as many as 5 external injuries on his wife Kallo Bai. resulting in her death. The number and nature of the injuries sustained by Kallo Bai and the resultant internal damage do not leave any room for doubt that appellant Bhagwandas while dealing repeated blows on his wife Kallo Bai by means of a Iathi had intended to cause her death. The above proved act of appellant Bhagwandas. in our considered view. therefore. would not amount to anything short of 'murder' and would be punishable under Section 302. IPC. only. For the foregoing reasons. we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal. The appeal. filed by appellant Bhagwandas against his conviction and sentence. therefore. fails and is hereby dismissed. His conviction under Section 302. IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are hereby affirmed. As we gather from the record that appellant. Bhagwandas. after serving out whole of the sentence. awarded by the trial Court on his conviction under Section 302. IPC. has been released from jail on 19.12.1998. therefore. fails and is hereby dismissed. His conviction under Section 302. IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are hereby affirmed. As we gather from the record that appellant. Bhagwandas. after serving out whole of the sentence. awarded by the trial Court on his conviction under Section 302. IPC. has been released from jail on 19.12.1998. no further steps in the matter now are required to be taken at any end.