Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 622 (MP)

Ganeshram v. State of M. P.

2001-08-21

USHA SHUKLA

body2001
JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed against the judgment of III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, delivered on 30th December, 1989, in Sessions Trial No. 159/90, whereby accused appellant Ganeshram was convicted under section 307, IPC, and sentenced to seven years' RI along-with fine, while co-accused Asman was acquitted of the charge under section 307 read with section 34, IPC. Both complainant Alok Sahu (PW 4) and accused Ganeshram were students in the same university. They were very well known to each other. Some time before this incident, there was a quarrel between the accused and complainant Alok Sahu in which there was an exchange of abuses. According to the complainant, this happened 3-4 months prior to the present incident. Alok Sahu (PW 4) stated that after the earlier incident, there was a reconciliation between them in which they had both apologized to each other. Thereafter, their relations had become normal. The prosecution case is that on 2nd March, 1990, Alok Sahu (PW 4) was returning home from the bus stand. His friends Motilal, Heeralal and Ganesh had also joined him. These three persons stopped at the wayside pan shop while Alok Sahu proceeded ahead. A short distance later, accused Ganeshram and acquitted accused Asman stopped him and started abusing him. Alok Sahu protested. Accused Ganeshram then whipped out a knife and attacked him with it while the other one caught hold of his hands. Motilal (PW 6), Heeralal (PW 7) and Ganesh (PW 8) rushed to the spot on hearing the commotion. But the assailants escaped. Alok Sahu was taken to the Police Station where he lodged the first information report Ex. P-9. He was then removed to the District Hospital, Sagar, where Dr. Shukla examined him. He found four incised wounds on his body of which two were on the left temporal and left frontal regions, while the other two were on the left back of the abdomen and left back of the chest. He was hospitalized for treatment. The usual investigation followed, The accused was arrested next day and on his information, a knife was recovered from his possession. Accused Ganeshram and acquitted accused Asman were tried for this assault. On analysis of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the complainant's statement which was supported by the first information report Ex. P-9 and medical evidence so far as accused Ganeshram was concerned. Accused Ganeshram and acquitted accused Asman were tried for this assault. On analysis of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the complainant's statement which was supported by the first information report Ex. P-9 and medical evidence so far as accused Ganeshram was concerned. He was, therefore, convicted and sentenced as described above. Offence against Asman was not found proved and he was therefore acquitted of the charge. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in placing reliance on the testimony of Alok Sahu who was found to have falsely implicated acquitted accused Asman. Alok Sahu has not been corroborated by any other witness. It was contended that Ganeshnim had been falsely implicated on the ground of mere suspicion on account of the earlier incident of quarrel between this accused and complainant Alok Sahu. It was further argued that the injuries found on the body of Alok Sahu were simple, and the offence, in any case, was one under section 324, IPC, and not under section 307, IPC. The accused was, therefore, entitled to be released on probation. We find from the evidence of Dr. Shukla (PW 2) that as many as four injuries were inflicted on Alok Sahu by some hard sharp-edged weapon. All the injuries were on the vital parts of the body like head and chest. There was bleeding from the incised wound on the temporal region, and fracture was suspected. It is another matter that no fracture was found. But still the fact that repeated blows were given on the vital parts of his body by deadly weapon, shows that intention of the assailant was to kill, or at least he must have known that his act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. Dr. Shukla (PW 2) told the Court that the injuries found on the body of Alok Sahu were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He could be saved by giving immediate medical aid. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the offence in this case was one under section 307, IPC. Alok Sahu was accompanied by his friends Motilal, Heeralal and Ganesh when he was returning home that night. In the first information report Ex. He could be saved by giving immediate medical aid. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the offence in this case was one under section 307, IPC. Alok Sahu was accompanied by his friends Motilal, Heeralal and Ganesh when he was returning home that night. In the first information report Ex. P-9, the story set up was that he would have been killed had his three fiends not intervened and saved him. According to this report, the accused and his companion ran away after the intervention by his friends. But in his statement before the Court, he denied having said this before the Police. This is a very material contradiction affecting his credibility. It is significant to note that although the prosecution produced Motilal (PW 6). Heeralal (PW 7) and Ganesh (PW 8) as eye-witnesses of the incident, none of them supported the complainant. In fact, Motilal (PW 6) was not questioned at all about the assault. And Heeralal (PW 7) and Ganesh (PW 8) admitted in their statements before the Court that they had intervened in the assault, but they categorically denied that Ganeshram or acquitted accused Asman were amongst the assailants. Both these witnesses were declared hostile to the prosecution. Even his own Uncle Alok Sahu (PW 1), with whom Alok Sahu was then residing (Para 15, PW 4), who had seen the incident from a short distance, does not support Alok Sahu that this accused Ganeshram was the culprit. On the contrary, Alok Sahu (PW 1) stated that although he had seen Motilal, Heeralal and Ganesh amongst the persons present on the spot, he could not recognize the assailants due to darkness. This uncle of his went so far as to assert in cross-examination that the accused were very well known to him since childhood as they were residents of the same locality, and that he was definite that these two accused persons were not amongst· the assailants. Alok Sahu (PW 4) blatantly involved the acquitted accused Asman in this incident in has chief examination at the trial. In his statement under section 161, CrPC, marked as Ex. P-l also, this person Asman was named by him. But in his cross-examination before the Court, he admitted that he did not know Asman either by his face or by his name at the time of the incident. In his statement under section 161, CrPC, marked as Ex. P-l also, this person Asman was named by him. But in his cross-examination before the Court, he admitted that he did not know Asman either by his face or by his name at the time of the incident. It appears from his cross-examination that he could not recognize the companion of Ganeshram. And yet he tried to implicate him on this serious charge. Under these circumstances, we do not consider him to be such a witness on whose solitary statement a conviction could be based. True it is that Ganeshram was named by him in the first information report, and the medical evidence also supported him regarding the type of weapon used. But the possibility that the real assailants could not be identified on account of darkness, and Ganeshram was named due to suspicion on account of the earlier incident cannot be reasonably ruled out. We would, therefore, give benefit of doubt of accused Ganeshram and acquit him of the charge leveled against him. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.