Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 731 (MP)

Rambharos v. State Of M. P.

2008-06-16

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT : 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 16-12-2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 330/2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 30-6-2004 at 4:00 p.m. at village Sangakheda in the courtyard of the house of Raghuveer Prasad appellant was abusing his wife Geeta Bai. He inflicted stick (lakdi) blow at her head on account of which she sustained the injury. Blood started oozing and she died at the spot. F.I.R. was lodged by Narayan Keer on the same date at 5:40 p.m. at police station Babai wherein Crime No. 223/2004 under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was registered. Spot map was prepared. Panchnama of dead body was prepared. Her body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Anand Choudhary. According to his opinion the cause of death was shock due to head injury and excess of bleeding damage to the vital organ. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized. Blood stained and controlled soil and one part of 'Kharelua' (weapon) were seized from the spot. Appellant was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded. In pursuance thereof another part of 'Kharelua' was seized at his instance. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of C.J.M., Hoshangabad who committed the case on 17-8-2004 to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. The appellant stood charged under section 302 of Indian Penal Code that on 30-6-2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the house of Raghuveer Keer at village Sangakheda committed the murder intentionally or (knowingly) causing the death of his wife Geeta Bai thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and the defence did not examine any witness. After considering the evidence, trial Court convicted the appellant under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and the defence did not examine any witness. After considering the evidence, trial Court convicted the appellant under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court, instant appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds mentioned therein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued on the point of sentence contending that appellant has served the substantial part of the sentence therefore he should be released on the period already undergone. He has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by Apex Court in the case of Sarup Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 SC 2452 and Bagdi Ram vs. State of M. P., AIR 2004 SC 387 . 5. On the other hand, Shri R. S. Shukla, learned P.L. appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court. 6. 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 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code? 7. I have perused the entire case and the evidence adduced therein. 8. Geeta Bai was married with appellant Rambharos prior to 8-9 years of incident. At the relevant time Geeta Bai was at her parents house. Appellant was also there at the time of incident. Geeta Bai was sitting in the courtyard of the house of Raghuveer Keer. Other ladies were also present there. Appellant came there, abused his wife Geeta Bai and inflicted stick blow at her head. As a consequence thereof, she died at the spot. 9. Several persons have witnessed the incident. Ramnarayan (PW-2), Jasoda Bai (PW-3), Rekha Bai (PW-4) and Tejram (PW-6) have deposed in one voice that appellant came there, abused his wife Geeta Bai and inflicted stick blow at her head. Blood started oozing, she fell down and died at the spot. In spite of lengthy and piercing cross-examination, their testimonies have not been shattered and their evidence is intact on the point that Geeta Bai died on account of injury caused by the appellant. 10. Blood started oozing, she fell down and died at the spot. In spite of lengthy and piercing cross-examination, their testimonies have not been shattered and their evidence is intact on the point that Geeta Bai died on account of injury caused by the appellant. 10. The presence of lady witnesses Jasoda Bai (PW-3) and Rekha Bai (PW-4) cannot be doubted in any manner at the spot because they were sitting there along with Geeta Bai in the courtyard of Raghuveer Keer prior to this incident and they have categorically stated the manner in which the appellant inflicted the stick blow to Geeta Bai. 11. The report Ex.P/3 was immediately lodged by Ramnarayan (PW-2) at Police Station Babai which was recorded by G. S. Patel (PW-5). S. K. Shukla (PW-11) prepared the panchnama of dead body Ex.P/11 and sent her body for post-mortem examination. Dr. Anand Chaudhary (PW-8) conducted post-mortem examination and found the injuries as mentioned in post-mortem report Ex.P/7. According to his opinion, cause of death was shock due to head injury and excessive bleeding damage to the vital organ. Duration was about 12 to 18 hours from the examination. Thus, medically it is proved that the death of Geeta Bai was homicidal. The ocular evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses has been supported by medical evidence. Apart from it, the appellant has given the disclosure statement Ex.P/5 to R. N. Katroliya (PW-9) and in pursuance thereof made the recovery of 'Kharelua' (an offence of weapon). Thus, there is ample evidentiary material available against the appellant. There is no reason to falsely implicate him. 12. Trial Court has dealt with every aspect of the matter in great detail and has rightly held him guilty under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code, hence such finding is affirmed. 13. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant was arrested on 5-7-2004 and since then he is in custody. Thus, he has suffered the jail sentence of near about 4 years. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction under section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant is in jail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.