Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1209 (MP)

Gokul Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-11-06

ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI, S.L.KOCHAR

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT stands convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life vide judgment dated 30-5-1995 passed by learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, M. P. in Sessions Trial No. 88/95. ( 2. ) FACTS not disputed are that Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) is the elder brother, Ram Kunwarbai (P. W. 2) is the sister and Kumari Kalpna (P. W. 3) is the daughter of the deceased Narayan Singh. Appellant Gokul Singh resides in the neighbourhood of the Bherusingh (P. W. 1) at Village Sihodakhurd, P. S. Kanvan, District Dhar (M. P. ). ( 3. ) (a ). Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that on 8-11-1994 at about ten Oclock in the night, Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) was at his house when the appellant came there and abused him and the deceased, and challenged them to come out. Bherusingh (P. W. 1) tried to pacify him and he took him to his house but the appellant came again and threaten that he will kill Narayan Singh. Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) again took him to his house and closed the door from outside. After a shortwhile, the appellant came out with knife and he struck deceased Narayan Singh who was sitting outside his house, with the knife at his chest. 3 (b ). The blow of the knife caused the injury on the chest of the deceased and blood came out from the injury. Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) with the help of villagers took Narayan Singh to hospital but he succumbed to his injury on the way even before reaching the hospital. Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) then went to Police Station, Kanwan and made First Information Report (Ex. P-1) there. The police sent the dead body of Narayan Singh to Hospital where Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W. 5) conducted the autopsy on the dead body and wrote post mortem report (Ex. P-9 ). 3 (c ). The spot map (Ex. P-4) was prepared by the police during investigation and a bed sheet of the appellant which he had wrapped round his body at the time of incident was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-5 ). After due investigation the police submitted the final report and the appellant was put to trial . ( 4. The spot map (Ex. P-4) was prepared by the police during investigation and a bed sheet of the appellant which he had wrapped round his body at the time of incident was seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-5 ). After due investigation the police submitted the final report and the appellant was put to trial . ( 4. ) THE appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after conducting the trial held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, hence this appeal. ( 5. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has not given any challenge to the fact that the death of Narayan Singh was homicidal. Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W. 5) has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Narayan Singh. This witness has proved the post mortem report (Ex. P-9 ). It is evident from the testimony of this witness and from the post mortem report that Narayan Singh died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to lung. It is well established from evidence of prosecution that the death of the deceased Narayan Singh was homicidal. ( 6. ) THE next question that creeps up for consideration is that who caused the injury to the deceased. Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) has described the incident in his statement made before the Trial Court. He has deposed that when he was at his house in between ten to ten past thirty oclock in night, the appellant came there and abused him and deceased Narayan. This witness has deposed that he sent the appellant back twice to his house and once he closed the door of the house of the appellant after leaving him inside the house, but the appellant some how came out with a knife and he struck Narayan with the knife. The witness has deposed that the blow fell on the chest of the deceased. Ramkunwarbai (P. W. 2) and Kumari Kalpna (P. W. 3) also witnessed the incident. Both the aforesaid witnesses have deposed that the appellant struck knife to the deceased before them. The testimony of the eye-witnesses can not be brushed aside just because they happen to be relatives of the deceased. Their presence on the spot is quite natural and probable. Ramkunwarbai (P. W. 2) and Kumari Kalpna (P. W. 3) also witnessed the incident. Both the aforesaid witnesses have deposed that the appellant struck knife to the deceased before them. The testimony of the eye-witnesses can not be brushed aside just because they happen to be relatives of the deceased. Their presence on the spot is quite natural and probable. They have given the honest version of the incident. There is nothing in their cross-examination to suggest that these witnesses are not telling the truth. ( 7. ) AMBU Singh (P. W. 6), though not an eye-witness, yet corroborates the prosecution story to some extent. He has deposed that exchange of abuse took place between the deceased and the appellant. He had deposed that the brother of Narayan Singh (deceased) Bheru Singh met him when he was coming after leaving the appellant to his house This witness has deposed that he invited Bheru Singh to smoke "beedi" and while they were smoking, he saw the appellant coming out from house and moving towards the house of deceased. Ambu Singh (P. W. 6) depose that just at that moment he heard Bheru Singh saying that Gokul Singh has hit his brother Narayan Singh and he saw the appellant skipping off. ( 8. ) ALL the eye-witnesses viz. Bheru Singh (P. W. 1), Ram Kunwarbai (P. W. 2) and Kumari Kalpna (P. W. 3) have given the honest version regarding the incident and they have been rightly believed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity or discrepancy except some minor and natural discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which could create any doubt against their veracity. The testimony of Bheru Singh (P. W. 1) is also corroborated by the first information report (Ex. P-1) made by him promptly in point of time. Ocular account of the witness stands corroborated further by the medical evidence. So the learned Trial Court has not erred in relying on the prosecution evidence. It is established by the prosecution evidence that the appellant inflicted the blow with knife on the chest of the deceased Narayan Singh. It has also been established by prosecution that Narayan Singh met a homicidal death and he died due to the injury found on his body. It is established by the prosecution evidence that the appellant inflicted the blow with knife on the chest of the deceased Narayan Singh. It has also been established by prosecution that Narayan Singh met a homicidal death and he died due to the injury found on his body. Thus, it is established that accused/appellant has caused the death of deceased Narayan Singh by inflicting the knife blow on him. ( 9. ) THE question which now arises for consideration is that which of the offence has been committed by the appellant ? The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the contention that it is not established that appellant intended to cause the death of the victim. He submits that only one blow was inflicted in the sudden fight and the act of the appellant was not premeditated or preplanned. Submission of the learned Counsel for appellant is that even the prosecution evidence is accepted on the face of it, appellant could be convicted under Section 304 (Part II), IPC. The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant has some force. It is evident that only one blow was dealt. Blow was not aimed on any particular part of the body. There is the evidence only to the effect that blow fell on the chest of the deceased. The appellant did not try to inflict any other blow of any kind. Looking to the manner in which the injury was inflicted, it can not be inferred that the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased. ( 10. ) LEARNED Counsel for State has refuted the submission of defence Counsel by submitting that the appellant abused the deceased and his brother and he was taken to his house thereafter he came with knife, so it can not be said that the appellant acted without premeditation in a sudden fight. On the basis of the case of Sukhbeer Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 327, it can be said that occurrence was "sudden" within the meaning of Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC as there was not a sufficient lapse of time between the quarrel and the fight. Viewed in the light of Sukhbeer Singh s case (supra), the case falls under the Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Viewed in the light of Sukhbeer Singh s case (supra), the case falls under the Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has given the single blow hence, it can not be inferred that he intended to cause death. He intended to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, this also can not be interred, as doctor has not opined that injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. But the appellant hit the deceased with knife which inflicted the injury on his chest suggests that the appellant had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death of the deceased. In the result, the appellant is not found guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, but he appears to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code. So his conviction under Section 302 of IPC is liable to be set aside and the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 304, Part II of IPC. ( 11. ) AS regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, rigorous imprisonment for five years shall be just and proper sentence, which will meet the ends of the justice. ( 12. ) UNDER the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified to the extent that instead of Section 302, IPC, the appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part II ). Upon his conviction for the aforesaid offence, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during the investigation and trial of this case and after the conviction by the Trial Court shall be set off in accordance with the provisions of Section 428, Cr. PC against the term of imprisonment imposed on him and the liability of the appellant to undergo imprisonment as imposed upon him shall be restricted to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. Seized articles be destroyed according to the prescribed rules. Personal bond and bail bond of the appellant shall stand cancelled. He be taken into custody for serving out the sentence as aforementioned.