Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 838 (MP)

Brijlal v. State of M. P.

2007-08-03

ARUN MISHRA, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2007
JUDGMENT : K.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 4-12-1995 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen in Sessions Trial No. 16/88, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default one year R.I. on each count with the direction to run sentences concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 10-3-1987 Chhotebeer and Brijlal lodged the report at police station Silwani that at 9:00 a.m. at Silwani Farm when Bhaiyalal was lifting the straw he saw the hand of a person and the dead body was of a man. On this information, Triyogi Narayan, A.S.I. registered the marg Ex.P/23 and during the course of its inquiry, it was also found that Sukhram @ Sukka is also missing. The Crime No. 26/87 under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered with respect to the murder of Ramprasad @ Munna. His suspects were interrogated. Brijlal and Shankar Puri on their memorandum got recovered the dead body of Sukhram @ Sukka. There were injuries on his person. The marg intimation Ex.P/24 was registered and the Crime No. 27/87 under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code was also registered. After preparing the panchnama, their dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination which were conducted by Dr. Ajay Singh Parihar. During the course of investigation, spot maps were prepared. The blood stained, controlled soil and straw were seized. The memorandum of the accused persons were recorded and the offences of weapon were recovered. The statement of witnesses under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. The sealed articles were referred to chemical examination from where the report was received. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Silwani, wherein the Criminal Case No. 105/87 was registered. This case was committed to Sessions Court on 13-1-1988. 3. The accused persons were charged under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code on two counts that on 8-3-1987 at Silwani Farm they committed the murder of Ramprasad @ Munna and Sukhram @ Sukka intentionally or (knowingly) by causing their death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. 3. The accused persons were charged under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code on two counts that on 8-3-1987 at Silwani Farm they committed the murder of Ramprasad @ Munna and Sukhram @ Sukka intentionally or (knowingly) by causing their death and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and the defence did not examine any witness. After considering the evidence, the trial Court acquitted Chhotebeer and Shankar Puri from the charges levelled against them but convicted the appellant Brijlal under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code on two counts and sentenced thereunder as stated in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court, the instant appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds mentioned therein for acquittal of the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. The guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence the trial Court committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, Shri R.S. Patel, learned Addl. A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, hence it does not call for any interference. 8. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 302 (two counts) of Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Ramprasad @ Munna and Sukhram @ Sukka? 9. We have perused the entire case and the evidence adduced therein. 10. The prosecution case is based on the last seen together and circumstantial evidence. 11. Hari Bai (PW-4) is the wife of deceased Ramprasad @ Munna. She has stated that appellant came to her house in the evening and said that he is weighing goods for which the arrangement of Rs. 30,000/- to be made. He carried her husband with him. Her husband was also having Rs. 11. Hari Bai (PW-4) is the wife of deceased Ramprasad @ Munna. She has stated that appellant came to her house in the evening and said that he is weighing goods for which the arrangement of Rs. 30,000/- to be made. He carried her husband with him. Her husband was also having Rs. 18,000/- at that time thereafter her husband never returned. She has further deposed that on the same date in the night the appellant again came to her house and also carried her father-in-law Sukhlal @ Sukka with him. Her father-in-law was having Rs. 12,000/- thereafter he also never returned back. After two days, the police showed her a dead-body in the Farm Silwani which was of her husband. 12. This witness is subjected to a great lengthy cross-examination but nothing is elicited to discredit her testimony. The only contradiction is brought with respect to the amount carried by her husband and her father-in-law. She has clearly stated in her evidence that usually she was keeping the money of her house and used to give her husband and father-in-law. On that day, she gave such amount to her husband and father-in-law out of this amount some money was of her house and some was taken on credit. 13. She has further clarified that when appellant came second time to call her father-in-law she was awakened by her father-in-law saying that Brijlal is calling. Brijlal came second time to call her father-in-law after three hours of carrying her husband. Her husband was wearing Kurta Paijama when he went with appellant. 14. If we consider the entire evidence of Hari Bai, then it appears that her statement is natural, convincing and reliable. 15. Bhagwandas (PW-18) has also stated that he saw Ramprasad @ Munna with Brijlal. They were seeing Ramleela. 16. Karodi (PW-6) has also stated that he saw Sukhram @ Sukka with Brijlal at about 11 to 11:30 p.m. in night. He asked Sukhlal @ Sukka as to where he is going in so late night. On this, he stated that he has purchased some goods, therefore, he is going there. He was wearing the coat at that time. He has clarified in cross-examination that he was sitting on the bench lying outside from the shop of Bhagwandas Soni. At that time he and Chhotelal were talking with each other and Ramleela was going on. 17. On this, he stated that he has purchased some goods, therefore, he is going there. He was wearing the coat at that time. He has clarified in cross-examination that he was sitting on the bench lying outside from the shop of Bhagwandas Soni. At that time he and Chhotelal were talking with each other and Ramleela was going on. 17. Thus, Bhagwandas saw the appellant with Ramprasad @ Munna and Karodi saw appellant with Sukhlal @ Sukka together. 18. Gyanchand (PW-7) has stated that he gave Rs. 4,000/- on credit to Ramprasad @ Munna on Sunday but he was unable to point out the date on which he has borrowed the money. 19. Dinesh Singh (PW-16) has deposed that on 11-3-1987 he seized Rs. 1,000/- from Gyanchand Soni, Rs. 135/- from Devendra Kumar, Rs. 130/- from Surendra Kumar, Rs. 50/- from Jaihind Kumar and Rs. 35 from Jinendra Jain vide Ex.P/36 to Ex.P/40 respectively at the instance of appellant. 20. Sukhnandan Soni (PW-17) has also supported the version of Dinesh Singh (PW-16). 21. Bhaiyalal (PW-5) has stated that he works at Silwani Farm. His duty starts from 8:00 a.m. The appellant Brijlal also works at that Farmhouse. His duty was at night along with Shankar Puri. He has further stated that as soon as he removed the straw he saw the fingers of a person. He was frightened and cried for Chhotelal and Shankar Puri. The wife of the Farm Superintendent also came there. She asked them to lodge the report. Consequently, the report was lodged. Police came there and recovered the dead body of Ramprasad @ Munna from straw. 22. Triyogi Narayan (PW-13) registered marg Ex.P/23 and Ex.P/24 and also registered the Crime No. 26/87 (Ex.P/25). He prepared the panchnama of dead body of Ramprasad @ Munna vide Ex.P/3 and of Sukhram @ Sukka vide Ex.P/29 and sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination vide Ex.P/30 and Ex. P/31. 23. Dr. Ajay Singh Parihar (PW-3), Assistant Surgeon, Silwani conducted the post-mortem examination of Ramprasad @ Munna. On external examination, he found that the body was decomposed. He found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound over left side of neck which extended to lower end of the ear 5” x 2” x 3.” It is dangerous wound. (ii) Incised wound over left cheek which extended to angle of mandible 3” x 1 x 1. It is a simple injury. He found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound over left side of neck which extended to lower end of the ear 5” x 2” x 3.” It is dangerous wound. (ii) Incised wound over left cheek which extended to angle of mandible 3” x 1 x 1. It is a simple injury. (iii) An incised wound over left axilla which extended to front of the chest 3” x 1” x 1.” It is a simple injury. These injuries were caused by sharp object within 48 to 72 hours and they were ante mortem in nature. 24. According to his opinion, the cause of death of Ramprasad @ Munna was shock due to excessive loss of blood due to cut of large carotid artery and carotid vein. Mode of death was homicidal. The post-mortem report is Ex.P/11 which contains his signature. 25. On 11-3-1987 he also conducted the post-mortem examination of Sukhram @ Sukka. His dead body was in advance decomposed condition. He found the following injuries: (i) Depressed fracture present over occipital protuberance 3” x 2.” It is dangerous wound caused by hard and blunt object. Duration within 3 to 5 days. Horizontally placed brain material which become lighty coming from the fracture side. (ii) Depressed fracture over the base of the skull 2” x 2.” It is dangerous one caused by hard and blunt object. Duration 3 to 5 days Both the injuries are ante mortem in nature. 26. According to his opinion, the cause of death was shock due to cerebral haemorrhage. Mode of death was Homicidal. Duration within 3 to 5 days. The post-mortem report is Ex.P/12 which contains his signature. 27. Thus, the prosecution has produced the evidence that the appellant and deceased persons were seen together thereafter they were found dead. Their bodies recovered. On post-mortem examination, the aforesaid injuries were found on their person. Ramprasad @ Munna died on account of shock due to excessive loss of blood from neck because the large carotid artery and carotid vein was cut and Sukhlal @ Sukka was shock due to cerebral haemorrhage. 28. The other circumstances against the appellant is the memo regarding seizure of weapon and recovery of weapon in consequence thereof. 29. Ramprasad @ Munna died on account of shock due to excessive loss of blood from neck because the large carotid artery and carotid vein was cut and Sukhlal @ Sukka was shock due to cerebral haemorrhage. 28. The other circumstances against the appellant is the memo regarding seizure of weapon and recovery of weapon in consequence thereof. 29. Triyogi Narayan (PW-13) has stated that the appellant gave the discloser statement Ex.P/4 regarding recovery of axe and chainpana concealed in a pit nearby to cattle-shed the witnesses of this statement are Battulal (PW-1) and Gyarsa (PW-2). Battulal (PW-1) has admitted his signature on this document Gyarsa (PW-2) has also stated that axe and chainpana were recovered from appellant. 30. Triyogi Narayan (PW-13) has further deposed that chainpana was recovered vide Ex.P/17 at the instance of Shankar Puri and axe was recovered vide Ex.P/21 from the house of Chhotebeer at the instance of Shankar Puri. 31. Abdul Vaheed Khan (PW-10) and Bhagwandas (PW-18) have stated that one axe was seized vide Ex.P/21. 32. Triyogi Narayan (PW-13) has also stated that appellant Brijlal gave the discloser statement for recovery of the currency notes. This statement is Ex.P/33. In pursuance thereof he made recovery of the currency notes vide Ex.P/34 seizure memo. Bhagwandas (PW-18) has also corroborated the version of Triyogi Narayan (PW-13) in this respect. Thus Rs. 18,412/- were recovered at the instance of this appellant. 33. The prosecution by the evidence has established that the appellant and the deceased persons were last seen together and thereafter they never returned. The clinching evidence has been adduced in this behalf against the appellant which clearly indicates his guilt. 34. In the case of H.P. Administration vs. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: “It is well established that circumstantial evidence consists in various links in a chain, which if complete, leads to the undoubted conclusion that the accused and the accused alone could have committed the offence with which he is charged. It is said that this evidence is much more dependable than direct evidence provided that no link in the chain is missing. While it is possible that each of these links may not by itself incriminate the accused or be conclusive against him the linking of all of them may forge the chain in arriving at that conclusion. It is said that this evidence is much more dependable than direct evidence provided that no link in the chain is missing. While it is possible that each of these links may not by itself incriminate the accused or be conclusive against him the linking of all of them may forge the chain in arriving at that conclusion. The evidence that accused had ill-will against the deceased furnishing a motive, that he was last seen in the company of the deceased, that he was present in the room of the deceased at or about the time he was murdered, that he was subsequently found in possession of articles which bear incriminating blood-stains and that he had hidden the dagger with blood-stains thereon and certain other articles which were discovered on the information furnished by him, all of which if believed leads to the conclusion that he was the murderer. In appreciating the evidence against the accused the prime duty of a Court is firstly to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible, that the witnesses who speak of it are credible and have no interest in implicating him or have ulterior motive.” 35. In the case of Arvind vs. State (Administration), (1999) 4 SCC 486 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: “The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is now well established. According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused and that all the circumstances cumulatively taken together should lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.” 36. The other circumstances by which he is connected with this offence is the discloser statement given by him and recovery of the weapons and currency notes. The other circumstances by which he is connected with this offence is the discloser statement given by him and recovery of the weapons and currency notes. His motive was to take out the money from the deceased persons. He was greedy, snatched the money from them and committed their murder. 37. All these circumstances clearly established, the guilt against the appellant and it is irresistible conclusion that Brijlal is the author of these crimes. He is the perpetrator of the crimes who has taken the life of two persons for the sake of money. He has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 38. We find no infirmity in finding and sentence passed by trial Court. This appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. 39. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. 40. The order regarding the disposal of criminal properties is also hereby affirmed.