Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 947 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bhagwandas

2000-08-31

R.B.DIXIT, S.S.JHA

body2000
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against acquittal of respondent in Session Trial No. 205/84 decided by Shri M.A.S. Khan, 1st Addl. Sessions· Judge, Morena on 21st February, 1996. It is alleged that on 8.1.1984 at about 3 O' clock in the night, Ramesh Chandra was admitted in the hospital at Morena. Ramesh Chandra was injured and since it was a medicolegal case, examining doctor. Dr. R.C. Srivastava has informed the Police of Police Station Kotwali, Morena at about 3:45 in the night. Head Constable Raghunath Singh went to the hospital where written complaint (Ex. P-1) was given by injured Ramesh Chandra (PW 1). In the written complaint, it is mentioned that when Ramesh had gone to the house, of his uncle, Shrilal at about 11 O' clock in the night, respondent Bhagwandas and discharged accused namely Prabho W/o Balram, Balram S/o Gutai and Babulal S/o Sawla started abusing Shrilal. When injured Ramesh asked them not to do so, he was assaulted by axe on his head and shoulder by accused Bhagwandas. Bhagwandas has given three blows by axe on his head. Since condition of injured Ramesh was deteriorating his dying declaration was recorded at 6 O'clock in the morning by Dr. R.C. Srivastava. While framing charge from the material on record, Prabha, Balram, and Babulal were discharged vide order dated 5.4.1985. P.W.4 Dr. R.C. Srivastava has examined injured Ramesh and found following injuries on his person : (i) 3"x1/2" x1/2" incised wound over head between both parietal bones; (ii) 2-1/2"x1/2"x1/2 incised wound over upper part of occipital region of head; (iii) 1-1/2"x 1/2"x 1/2" incised wound present over lower part of occipital region of head; (iv) 2"x 1-1/2" contusion and abrasion over it present over the back on left side 3" below the lower tip of scapula. The report is (Ex. P-14). Thus, four incised wounds were found on head and 3" below the left scapula. Doctor has found that the injuries No. 1 to 3 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injury No.4 was caused by hard and blunt object. In the X-Ray, no fracture was found on the body of injured. The Doctor has found that when (PW 1) Ramesh was admitted in the Hospital, his condition was serious. PW 1 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that he had gone to have meal at the house of his uncle Shrilal. In the X-Ray, no fracture was found on the body of injured. The Doctor has found that when (PW 1) Ramesh was admitted in the Hospital, his condition was serious. PW 1 Ramesh Chandra has deposed that he had gone to have meal at the house of his uncle Shrilal. Hot talks' were going on between Shrilal on one side and Bairam. Prabho, Babulal and Bhagwandas on the other side. They were abusing each other. On hearing noise, he came out of the house and asked Bhagwandas, Balram, Babulal and Prabho why they are fighting. On his asking, Bhagwandas has given three axe blows on his head. He received one injury on the shoulder and fell unconscious on the spot. In the report, presence of Jagdish and Suresh on the spot and their witnessing the incident is mentioned. He has deposed that he has regained consciousness in the hospital at 3 O'clock in the morning. He found police constable sitting near him. He gave him written report. The report was written by his friend and he has signed on the report. Report is (Ex.P-1). He has not name the friend who has written (Ex.P-1). In the cross-examination in para 7, he has admitted that the plot was purchased by him and accused Bhagwandas jointly. The land is registered in his name only. The plot is forcibly occupied by Balram and Bhagwandas and they have started constructing a room over the plot. He has further deposed that one wall was also constructed over the plot. In para 8 of his deposition, he has deposed that he is resident of village Nande Ka Pura. His wife -resides with his uncle and parents reside in the village. He used to sleep in the house of his uncle at Morena. In para 9 of deposition, he has admitted that the disputed plot is by the side of the house of Shrilal towards Shikarpur. He has further stated that the incident took place in the lane outside the house of Shrilal. The width of lane is up to Railway line. In para 13 he has deposed that he was assaulted from behind. It was a dark night .but electric bulb was ignited. Then he changed his version and said that it was moonlit night. He has further deposed that no one intervened and no one else was injured. The width of lane is up to Railway line. In para 13 he has deposed that he was assaulted from behind. It was a dark night .but electric bulb was ignited. Then he changed his version and said that it was moonlit night. He has further deposed that no one intervened and no one else was injured. In para 17, he again changed the version and deposed that Bhagwandas was constructing a wall over the disputed plot, and on his stopping him from carrying on the construction, the incident took place but he had not narrated this fact to the Station House Officer. As regards dying declaration, he has denied portion 'B' to 'B' in dying declaration (Ex. P-3). In this dying declaration (Ex. P-3) he has deposed that at the time of incident none of the members of family was present. Thus, the story of fight with Shrilal stands falsified. Even otherwise, in para 11 of his deposition, he has deposed that he came out of the house and no one followed him and he was alone when he was assaulted. This statement is corroborated by his statement (Ex. P-3). Later on, he has developed the story that when he was being assaulted, Shrilal was present on the spot but Shrilal is not examined as a prosecution' witness. In the evidence, he has further deposed that the incident was seen by both the sons of Shrilal and his wife. Whereas (PW 2) Jagdish Chandra has deposed that Ramesh's wife was not present on the spot. He has also denied in para 5 of his deposition that construction has been made over the disputed plot till date of evidence. In (Ex. D-2), he has mentioned that there was exchange of abuses between his father Shrilal and Bhagwandas, Prabho, Balram and Babulal, but he could not assign any reason why the name of Shrilal is not mentioned in (Ex. D-2). Thus, it is clear that the prosecution story regarding the rent took place on account of fight between accused party and Shtilal, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The, deposition of both the witnesses (PW 1) Ramesh and (PW 2) Jagdish Chandra Mahor does not inspire confidence. D-2). Thus, it is clear that the prosecution story regarding the rent took place on account of fight between accused party and Shtilal, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The, deposition of both the witnesses (PW 1) Ramesh and (PW 2) Jagdish Chandra Mahor does not inspire confidence. At one place, (PW 1) Ramesh deposed that he was given three axe blows by Bhagwandas and later changed his version and deposed that he was assaulted from behind by Bhagwandas and after getting first blow, he has seen Bhagwandas. Thus, he has given contradictory statements. At oneplace, he has deposed that while talking to Bhagwandas, he was assaulted and at another place, he has stated that he was assaulted from behind. (PW2) Jagdish Chandra has given different version of story. He has deposed that Bhagwandas has given one axe blow on the head of Ramesh, then on his asking why he has hit Ramesh he has given two more blows to Ramesh. This story is not corroborated by Ramesh. He has deposed about three injures caused by Bhagwandas on the head of Ramesh whereas, in the medical examination Ramesh has received four injuries. There is· no explanation about fourth Injury. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has found that the evidence of (PW 1) Ramesh and (PW 2) Jagdish Chandra does not inspire confidence and it will not be safe to rely upon their testimony to convict the respondent. Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to prove the place of incident. (PW 1) Ramesh has deposed that he was beaten outside the house of Shrilal. In para 17, of his statement, he has deposed that he was beaten near the plot. Thus, the place of incident is changed by him. On the contrary, (PW 2) Jagdish Chandra has deposed that Ramesh was assaulted in the lane and no wall is constructed so far. Thus, the trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. The trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.