Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 632 (MP)

Ram Soni v. State of M. P.

2001-08-24

USHA SHUKLA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. A tragic incident occurred in the afternoon of the day of the Holi festival of the year 1991 in which Devendra alias Pappu lost his life and Mukesh Sharma was injured. Two persons, namely, Sanju alias Sanjay and Ram Soni were prosecuted in connection with this incident. Sanju was tried on a charge under sections 302 and 307, IPC while Ram Soni was charged for those offences with the aid of section 34, IPC, or in the alternative, with the aid of section 109 of the Code. Sessions Judge, Sagar vide his judgment dated 16th January, 1992, in Sessions Trial No. 196/91, convicted accused Sanju under sections 326 and 324, IPC and Ram Soni was convicted under sections 326/109 and 324 read with 109, IPC. Both were sentenced to five years' RI and two years' RI, respectively, for these offences. This decision of the Sessions Judge has been challenged by Sanju in Criminal Appeal No. 175/92, while Ram Soni's appeal is 154/92. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case is that on 5th March, 1991, Mukesh and his friend Devendra were going for lunch to the house of Prahlad Vishwakarma, the brother-in-law of Mukesh. They were going on a scooter. When they reached the Kali Tigadda, someone threw colour on them. They stopped the scooter and protested against it. A heated argument then followed between Mukesh and his friend Devendra on the one side, and the two accused persons on the other. This deteriorated into exchange of abuses. Accused Sanju suddenly attacked Mukesh with a knife hitting him on the back side of his thigh. After that he stabbed Devendra also on his left thigh causing a fatal injury to him. 3. The incident was seen by Rameshwar Prasad (PW 1) and Annu alias Anil Kumar (PW 11) who had his pan tapra near the spot. Police constables Daddu Ram (PW 12) and Abhay (PW 18), who were posted on duty in that area, also witnessed the crime. These two constables took the injured to the Police Station where Sub-Inspector Maravi (PW 20) recorded the first information report Ex. P-15 and sent both the injured to the District Hospital where Dr. Saifi (PW 21) examined the injured and admitted Devendra in Ward No.6. The condition of Devendra was very serious. There was profuse bleeding from his wound. These two constables took the injured to the Police Station where Sub-Inspector Maravi (PW 20) recorded the first information report Ex. P-15 and sent both the injured to the District Hospital where Dr. Saifi (PW 21) examined the injured and admitted Devendra in Ward No.6. The condition of Devendra was very serious. There was profuse bleeding from his wound. Devendra expired at 20 minutes past four that very evening as per the marg intimation Ex. P-4. 4. The two accused persons were prosecuted in connection with this crime on charges which have been detailed above. The trial resulted in conviction of Sanju under sections 326 and 324, IPC. Accused Ram Soni was convicted under sections 326 and 324 read with 109, IPC. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused persons challenged the correctness of the decision. It was argued that both of them were innocent and had been falsely involved by the Police. It was pointed out that the assailants were not named in the FIR, and in the test identification parade, these accused persons were not identified by Mukesh (PW 2) who was himself a victim of the assault. The other two eye-witnesses Daddu Ram (PW 12) and Abhay (PW 18) did not participate in the identification proceedings. Both of them were wholly unreliable witnesses who had not seen the assault and could not have identified the culprits. Two other eye-witnesses, namely, Annu (PW 11) and Rameshwar Soni (PW 1) have also not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. There was no evidence to implicate the two accused who, therefore, deserved to be acquitted. 6. There is no dispute on the point that some incident did take place that afternoon near the Kali Tigadda in which Mukesh and Devendra were attacked by a knife. Dr. Saifi (PW 21) found a simple incised wound on the left thigh of Mukesh as per his report Ex. P-23. Dr. Saifi also found a stab wound on the left thigh of Devendra, who was bleeding profusely and his condition was fast deteriorating. He died in the hospital after a short while and the post mortem conducted by, Dr. Choubey (PW 17) revealed that the muscles of posterior and medial compartments of the left thigh were incised due to stab injury. The left femoral artery was cut. So was the left femoral vein. He died in the hospital after a short while and the post mortem conducted by, Dr. Choubey (PW 17) revealed that the muscles of posterior and medial compartments of the left thigh were incised due to stab injury. The left femoral artery was cut. So was the left femoral vein. Death was due to profuse haemorrhage on account of these injuries as described in post mortem report Ex. P-25. 7. But the question is whether these accused persons were in any way responsible for these injuries. It must be remembered that the accused persons were not known to Mukesh or deceased Devendra from before. Two other eye-witnesses Daddu Ram (PW 12) and Abhay (PW 18) also did not know them prior to this incident. This being a day of Holi, people on the streets had colour on their faces and clothes. This fact has also been admitted by Annu (PW 11). 8. On 6.3.1991, the Police recorded the statements of Rameshwar Soni (PW 1), and Annu (PW 11) amongst others, and these witnesses named Sanju as the assailant while Ram Soni is said to have handed over the knife to Sanju. The other two witnesses, constables Daddu (PW 12) and Abhay (PW 18), are said to have learnt the names of assailants from Annu (PW 11). But at the trial, both Rameshwar (PW 1) and Annu (PW 11) denied their presence on the spot at the material time. They denied seeing the incident and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. If Annu was not present on the spot, he could not have told Daddu Ram and Abhay the names of the assailants. The claim of these two constables that they had learnt the names of the accused from Annu that evening, thus falls to the ground. 9. We have carefully scrutinised the statements of constables Daddu Ram and Abhay, and we find that both of them lack credibility. In chief-examination, they narrated the story in detail. They spoke about the altercation, and deposed that accused Ram Soni had handed over the knife to accused Sanju and the latter had delivered the blows to the two victims. But in cross-examination, both of them admitted that their attention was drawn towards the scene only after the blows had been delivered. In chief-examination, they narrated the story in detail. They spoke about the altercation, and deposed that accused Ram Soni had handed over the knife to accused Sanju and the latter had delivered the blows to the two victims. But in cross-examination, both of them admitted that their attention was drawn towards the scene only after the blows had been delivered. This falsifies their earlier assertion that they had seen Ram Soni handing over the knife to accused Sanju, and that they saw accused Sanju stabbing the two victims. In fact, Mukesh (PW 2) himself did not attribute this part to accused Ram Soni. The two constables named above have thus clearly perjured themselves and had concocted false evidence against the accused. 10. Constable Daddu Ram (PW 12) says that they were at a distance of 100 paces from the place of incident. Constable Abhay (PW 18) says that when they reached the place of incident, the assailants were fleeing and were about 30-40 paces away from them, it is very strange and unfortunate that these two young men belonging to the Police force could not give a chase to the culprits and could not apprehend them. It is also very unfortunate that they took their duty in such a cavalier and casual manner that they remained indifferent spectators of the entire episode right from the quarrel upto the stabbing, and stirred themselves only after the accused had fled. What sort of Policemen are they? 11. At any rate, the accused persons were not known to these two Policemen. According to them, Annu (PW 11) informed them their names. But Annu does not admit this to be true. He says that he was not present at the spot and had not seen the incident. He denied that he had informed the two Police constables the names of the two accused. One also wonders that if constables Daddu Ram and Abhay came to know the names of the assailants from Annu that very evening, why did they not rush to the Police Station to apprise the Investigating Officer about it? The fact that they did not do so also falsifies their claim that they had recognised the assailants and had known their names that evening. 12. Naib Tahsildar Shri Pawar (PW 3) conducted some sort of an identification parade more than a month after the incident. The fact that they did not do so also falsifies their claim that they had recognised the assailants and had known their names that evening. 12. Naib Tahsildar Shri Pawar (PW 3) conducted some sort of an identification parade more than a month after the incident. He has not given any details in his statement before the Court except that, Mukesh had wrongly identified the accused. The identification memo Ex. P-4 shows that both Sanjay and Ram Soni were put up for identification. The memo does not show that they were set up for identification separately. It seems that the two of them were mixed up with 12 other persons, and Mukesh picked up a wrong person named Bablu. We do not understand how one person was picked up in this identification parade held for two suspects. The identification memo does not mention as to what Mukesh had said while picking up this wrong person Bablu. We find that no attempt was made to get any clarification from Naib Tahsildar Pawar about the conduct of identification. But it appears that since Mukesh (PW 2) did not attribute any part to the second person in the incident of stabbing, he had picked up only one person in the identification parade and that person was also wrongly identified. Mukesh admitted in cross-examination (para 27, PW 2) that he did not know Sanju prior to his appearance in Court, and the only reason why he recognised him in Court was because he had seen him in handcuffs in the trial Court and his friends had told him that this man was Sanju who had assaulted him. Therefore his dock identification of accused Sanju is also of no value. 13. The learned counsel for the State pointed out that a blood-stained knife was seized by the Police on memorandum Ex. P-20 of accused Sanju. The report Ex. P-27 received from FSL, Sagar, confirms presence of blood on this knife. But we do not find this recovery to be sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offence charged. The origin of the blood was not found, much less the blood group, which could in some way connect the recovery to the crime. 14. For all these reasons, we find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not reliable and did not establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. The origin of the blood was not found, much less the blood group, which could in some way connect the recovery to the crime. 14. For all these reasons, we find that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not reliable and did not establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond doubt. Both the appeals must therefore be allowed. 15. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of Sanju and Ram Soni are set aside. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged.