Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 664 (MP)

Kalua @ Kaluram v. State of M. P.

2002-07-15

P.C.AGRAWAL, S.S.JHA

body2002
JUDGMENT Jha, J. --1. Appellant is convicted for an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.1986, Babu Khangar informed Rajendra at Kondar that his father-in-law died. Rajendra, alongwith his wife Munnibai and uncle Mukundsingh, went to village Khod. In the village, they found the dead body of Bhawani Singh lying on a cot. It is alleged that appellant was a friend of Bhawanisingh. Bhawanisingh had sold his agricultural land a few days before the incident and had kept the entire sale consideration with the appellant. After the death of Bhawanisingh, his relations named Kalyansingh, Munnibai, Rajendrasingh and Naharsingh called accused Kalua. Kalua admitted his guilt before them and stated that he has murdered Bhawani Singh and he was having the money of Bhawanisingh and he is prepared to return the money. At the instance of the accused, one Harbhajansingh went to the mother of the accused. Kalua's mother gave money kept in a cloth bundle to Harbhajan which contained Rs. 33,955/-. After arrest of Kalua, Harbhajan was called by the Police and the police recovered Rs. 33,955/- from Harbhajan. 3. Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, has convicted the appellant. 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not established its case. Prosecution has failed to establish its case. There is no evidence of commission of offence by the appellant. Even from the prosecution evidence, deceased was friendly with the appellant. After selling the agricultural land, the deceased had kept the entire sale consideration with the appellant. It is not the case of the prosecution that in order to steal or rob the said money, appellant had murdered the deceased. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had taken money forcibly from the deceased and while taking money from the deceased, he has caused the death of the deceased. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the so-called extra-judicial confession has no validity as according to the prosecution witnesses, appellant had admitted his guilt, but thereafter when the FIR was lodged, extra-judicial confession of appellant Kalua is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P-4). It is mentioned that Bhawanisingh was murdered in the night and the complaint was lodged by Harbhajan Seth wherein it is mentioned that the deceased had sold his agricultural land for Rs. P-4). It is mentioned that Bhawanisingh was murdered in the night and the complaint was lodged by Harbhajan Seth wherein it is mentioned that the deceased had sold his agricultural land for Rs. 52,000/- and somebody has poisoned Bhawanisingh. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the extra-judical confession by accused Kalua should have been mentioned in the FIR Ex. P-4. He submitted that there is no iota of evidence against the appellant. 6. PW 3 Rajendrasingh has deposed that deceased had friendly relations with the appellant. They were fast friends. Deceased used to keep his money and other goods with the appellant. He has deposed that he was informed by the appellant that he had murdered Bhawanisingh for money. In the FIR Ex. P-4 he has mentioned that Bhawanisingh was a patient of T.B. He has admitted that before lodging the FIR, Kalua has admitted about the commission of offence by him. 7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that such extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon as it ought to have formed part of the FIR. Similarly, PW 4 Munni has deposed that after lodging the report, Kalua informed her and admitted commission of offence by him. But this witness, in para 3, admitted that Naharsingh asked Kalua about the money. She denied that he stated that he has not murdered Bhawanisingh. Thereafter Naharsingh started beating him and told him that he will call the police and their prestige will be spoilt by the police. Virtually, what he wanted to say was that he will get his housewife raped through police. Money was not recovered from Kalua, but it has been recovered from Harbhajan seth. It has also come in evidence that after the sale, deceased had kept some money with Kalua and some money with Harbhajan Seth. 8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that on going through the entire evidence on record, no case is made out against the appellant and there is enough material on record to acquit the appellant. 9. We have perused the evidence on record. This case rests on circumstantial evidence. Except the evidence of last seen, no other evidence is available on record to maintain conviction of the appellant. Appellant and the deceased were very close friends and they had family relations. Deceased had so much confidence in the appellant that he kept his money with him. We have perused the evidence on record. This case rests on circumstantial evidence. Except the evidence of last seen, no other evidence is available on record to maintain conviction of the appellant. Appellant and the deceased were very close friends and they had family relations. Deceased had so much confidence in the appellant that he kept his money with him. It is admitted by the witnesses that the deceased used to keep his money with the appellant. In the said facts of the case, motive to cause death of the deceased is not established by the prosecution as according to the prosecution, deceased used to keep his money with the appellant. Therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Money was not recovered from the appellant and was recovered from Harbhajan Seth. Deposition of PW 4 Munni clearly demonstrates that since the appellant was having money of the deceased and other relations wanted the money, they had threatened him that they will get the ladies of his house raped through the police officers, if he will not admit the guilt. On such extra-judicial confession, no conviction can be made. On going through entire evidence on record, no evidence is found against the appellant. If there was extra-judicial confession by the appellant before lodging of the FIR, this fact should have been mentioned in the FIR. This fact is not reflected in the deposition of PW 3 Rajendrasingh. Motive of murder for greed of money does not appear to be proper as the money was kept with Harbhajans Seth. This witness has admitted that he has not mentioned about extra-judicial confession in the FIR. Similarly, PW 4 Munni has also deposed in similar terms. PW 5 Kalyansingh has deposed about the extra-judicial confession by the appellant, but he admitted in para 4 that after extra-judicial confession, report was lodged. Rajendrasingh went to lodge the report and the police has recorded his statement. Therefore, the story of extrajudicial confession has become suspicious as this fact is not mentioned in the FIR. In the said facts of the case, it will not be safe to maintain conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 302, IPC. There is not enough material on record against the appellant to maintain the conviction. 10. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. In the said facts of the case, it will not be safe to maintain conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 302, IPC. There is not enough material on record against the appellant to maintain the conviction. 10. In the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Bail bond and surety of the appellant are discharged.