Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 808 (MP)

NEHRU SINGH v. STATE OF M P

2009-07-15

RAKESH SAKSENA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03. 10. 2000 passed by the Special Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdol in s. T. No. 161/97 convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC with sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R. I for one year, has filed this appeal. ( 2. ) IT is undisputed fact in the matter that deceased Sukrati Bai was the second wife of Dhobi Singh while the appellant Nehru Singh is the son from the first wife of Dhobi Singh who died 3-4 years prior to the date of incident. In the family property there was separate shares of sukarti Bai and Nehru Singh. Sukarti Bai had agricultural field known in the name of Tilwanhar field, which, she had given for cultivation to one Pusua on sharing basis. Sukarti Bai died unnatural death on 10. 4. 96 and her dead body was found lying in the culvert near the aforesaid field. The dead body was seen by one Manna Singh who informed the same to the villagers, on which, Khalkiya (P. W. 1), suhablal (P. W. 2), Budhsen (P. W. 6) and Set Singh (P. W. 8) went to such place and saw the dead body of Sukarti Bai. It is also undisputed fact that deceased Sukarti Bai was residing with his brother Khalkiya (P. W. 1 ). ( 3. ) APART from the aforesaid undisputed facts, the prosecution story in short is that on 10. 4. 96, deceased Sukarti Bai went to her Tilwanhar field for taking her share of Red Gram Crops from Pusua. When she did not return upto the night then her brother Khalkiya went for her search. He came to know from Suhablal that Sukarti Bai was taken by nehru Singh at his home. On such information, he accompanied with suhablal and Phool Singh went to the home of Nehru Singh and on asking from Nehru Singh, he told them that she had gone to village bartola. Thereafter, they along with Nehru Singh came back to the home of Suhablal, where, after leaving Nehru Singh, Khalkiya went to village Bartola for verifying the aforesaid fact. Sukarti Bai was not found in such village also then Khalkiya along with Phool Singh came back to the residence of Suhablal. Thereafter, they along with Nehru Singh came back to the home of Suhablal, where, after leaving Nehru Singh, Khalkiya went to village Bartola for verifying the aforesaid fact. Sukarti Bai was not found in such village also then Khalkiya along with Phool Singh came back to the residence of Suhablal. By that time appellant Nehru Singh fled away from the residence of Suhablal. Khalkiya and Phool Singh stayed there in the night and in the morning i. e. 11. 4. 96, Khalkiya along with Set Singh, Ex Sarpanch of the village, went to the police station karan Pathar and lodged the missing person report contending that his younger sister Sukarti Bai w/o Dhobi Singh was residing with him. She did not had any issue while her husband had one son, namely, nehru Singh from his first wife. Sukarti Bai was living separately from nehru Singh. The land was partitioned in three shares, out of which, one part was given to Sukarti Bai but Nehru Singh had not given recognition to such family partition and was not permitting her to cultivate such land, however, some of the land of her possession was being cultivated by other on her behalf on sharing basis. In the aforesaid field, Red Gram Crop was sown. As per further averments, yesterday on 10. 4. 96, after taking meal, she went to the field to collect her share of the crop from Pusua. When she did not return in the night then he went to search her. On the way, he asked from Bhaiyalal and his son Suhablal about Sukarti Bai then Suhablal told him that Nehru singh was misbehaving with Bahan (nic name of the deceased) and also beating her by means of stick, kicks and fists and was forcibly taking her to his residence, on which, he along with Phool Singh and Suhab singh went to the residence of Nehru Singh. On asking regarding sukarti Bai, he told that, after refreshing herself near Jhiriya, she had gone saying that she is going to village Bartola. Thereafter, Khalkiya brought Nehru Singh at the residence of Bhaiyalal and call the sarpanch and handed over custody of Nehru Singh to him. Thereafter again he went to search Sukarti Bai but could not found her. On asking regarding sukarti Bai, he told that, after refreshing herself near Jhiriya, she had gone saying that she is going to village Bartola. Thereafter, Khalkiya brought Nehru Singh at the residence of Bhaiyalal and call the sarpanch and handed over custody of Nehru Singh to him. Thereafter again he went to search Sukarti Bai but could not found her. On returning the home of Bhaiyalal, he found that Nehru Singh had fled away, on which, the missing person report was given to the police. The same was written in the Rojnamcha Sanha No. 290 at 12. 10 on 11. 4. 96 and to search the missing person, SHO of Police Station Karan Pathar, came to village Barajh, where Khalkiya informed him that the dead body of deceased Sukarti Bai was lying in the culvert near field, on which, the inquest intimation (Ex. P/20) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/19)were drawn by him. After calling the witnesses and preparing the inquest panchnama (Ex. P/4) the dead body was sent to hospital for autopsy. The spot-map was also prepared. Clothes and two stones lying on the dead body, the earth stained and simple along with some other articles were seized for which different panchnamas were prepared. The marg and FIR was registered at the Police Station. After investigation, on establishing the offence, appellant was charge-sheeted under section 302 and 201 of IPC while one other accused Phool Singh (since acquitted) was charge sheeted under Section 201 of the IPC. ( 4. ) ON framing the charges of Section 302 and 201 IPC against the appellant and of section 201 against accused Phool Singh, they abjured the guilt. Consequently, the trial was held. On appreciation, accused phool Singh was acquitted while appellant has been convicted and sentenced as referred to above. The same is under challenge in this appeal. ( 5. ) SHRI L. N. Sankle, learned counsel of the appellant by taking us through the evidence led by the prosecution argued that the impugned conviction being based on inadmissible circumstantial evidence of last seen together, is not sustainable. He further said that none of the witnesses have stated anything connecting the appellant with the unnatural death of Sukarti Bai. The chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence is neither complete nor proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further said that none of the witnesses have stated anything connecting the appellant with the unnatural death of Sukarti Bai. The chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence is neither complete nor proved beyond reasonable doubt. The missing person report written in Rojnamcha sanha has not been proved in accordance with the procedure by khalkiya. According to him, deceased and the appellant were separated long back and thereafter with respect of the property, no dispute was existing between them. In such premises the motive for causing such death, has also not been established against the appellant. The prosecution case is also not supported by any independent source of evidence. There was family dispute with respect of the property with the Suhablal thus due to such enmity such witness was also not reliable. With these submissions and relying upon some decisions of the Apex court and of this court, he prayed for acquittal of the appellant by allowing this appeal. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, while responding the aforesaid arguments, shri T. K. Modh, learned Dy. A. G by justifying the conviction and sentence of the appellant said that the same are based on proper appreciation of evidence and also in conformity with law. He further said that as per available deposition of Suhablal (P. W. 2) the independent witness, it has been proved that Sukrati Bai was last seen with appellant Nehru Singh while she was taken by him with beating by means of stick on her head. On receving such information from this witness, Khalkiya (P. W. 1) after some verification at some places lodged a missing person report, during enquiry of the same, the dead body of Sukarti Bai was found lying in the culvert. On postmortem it was revealed that she died because of the injuries found on her body. He further said that the deposition of Suhablal stating that thedeceased was lastly seen in the company of the appellant on the fateful day while she was also being beaten by the appellant. Such company of the appellant with the deceased is also proved by Ram Singh (P. W. 4) even on turning hostile. In such premises, the prayer for dismissal of the appeal is made. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing the counsel at length, we have examined the record and also perused the impugned judgment. P. W. 9 Dr. Such company of the appellant with the deceased is also proved by Ram Singh (P. W. 4) even on turning hostile. In such premises, the prayer for dismissal of the appeal is made. ( 7. ) AFTER hearing the counsel at length, we have examined the record and also perused the impugned judgment. P. W. 9 Dr. B. K. Kola carried out the postmortem of the deceased and prepared its report Ex. P/17 ). According to his deposition, he found following injuries on her body:- 1. whole of face along with forehead with depression on right cheek and nasal bridge, blood comes from nostril and mouth that is open but eyes closed. 2. whole of chest supra clavicle region of both side with depression on right 3rd to 5th ICS region along with both breast region. 3. multiple on left forearm anterior aspect and both legs below knee on anterior aspect size is 2x3 cm and irregular in shape. 4. Lacerated wound 8x3x2 cm on right parietal region. 5. two dry fleshy color bruise present on right lower abdomen and right gluseal region size is about 8x8 cm and 5x 7cm irregular in shape. As per opinion of the doctor, the death was homicidal in nature due to rupture of heart by violent blow of any hard and blunt object in chest. Such postmortem report is not challenged on behalf of the appellant in the cross examination of such witness. In view of such unrebutted fact on record, the findings of the trial court holding that death was homicidal in nature because of the aforesaid injuries, does not require any interference at this stage, hence such findings of the impugned judgment are hereby affirmed. ( 8. ) NOW, we have to examine, whether appellant was the only person who was lastly seen in the company of the deceased and thereafter deceased was found dead with injuries on her body and there is sufficient circumstance to draw the inference that the alleged injuries were caused by the appellant and lastly what was the motive of the appellant to commit such an act with the deceased. ( 9. ) KHALKIYA (P. W. 1), the cousin brother of the deceased deposed that deceased Sukarti Bai his younger sister was married with Dhobi singh Gond. She did not had any issue while appellant was the son from the first wife of her husband. ( 9. ) KHALKIYA (P. W. 1), the cousin brother of the deceased deposed that deceased Sukarti Bai his younger sister was married with Dhobi singh Gond. She did not had any issue while appellant was the son from the first wife of her husband. In family partition, Sukarti Bai got her share of agricultural field while the appellant got some other part in his share. The field known in the name of Tilwanhar field came into the share of Sukarti Bai, who used to get her land cultivated through pusua on sharing basis. On the date of aforesaid incident at about 3-4 o Clock P. M Sukarti Bai went to Pusua for collecting her share of the red Gram Crop. When she did not return up to the evening then, he went to search her. On the way, he came to know from Suhablal that appellant Nehru Singh took away Sukarti Bai at his residence. Phool singh was also present at the residence of Suhablal. On such information, he along with Phool Singh and Suhablal went to the residence of Nehru Singh to search Sukarti Bai. On asking, he told them that she had gone to Bartola then Set Singh, the ex-sarpanch was called and after leaving him in the custody of Sarpanch, he went to village Bartola to verify the information given by Nehru Singh. On verification, Sukarti Bai was not found in such village, on which, he came back, to the residence of Suhablal. By that time, appellant Nehru singh had fled away from such place. Thereafter, in the next morning, he accompanied with Set Singh, went to police station and lodged the missing person report. While returning from the police station to village, on way, near the culvert, he saw the dead body of Sukarti Bai in injured condition. Two stones were also lying on the chest of such body. On his information, police came to the village. According to his deposition, he came to know from Suhablal that Sukarti Bai was being taken by the appellant at his residence. He also stated that on his information the missing person report was recorded by the police. Such rojnamcha Sanha No. 210 (Ex. P/18) dated 11. 4. 96, has been proved by head Constable Suresh Pandey (P. W. 10) who recorded the same. He also stated that on his information the missing person report was recorded by the police. Such rojnamcha Sanha No. 210 (Ex. P/18) dated 11. 4. 96, has been proved by head Constable Suresh Pandey (P. W. 10) who recorded the same. The material facts regarding partition of the agricultural land between the deceased and the appellant stated in the missing person report also stated by Suresh Pandey (P. W. 10) in his deposition. ( 10. ) THE facts regarding beating of the deceased by means of stick, kicks and fists by the appellant on the allege day of incident has been stated by the complainant Khalkiya (PW 1) on the information received from Bhaiyalal and his son Suhab lal (P. W. 2 ). Such Suhablal (P. W. 2), on recording his statement stated that on the date of incident at about 5-6 O clock in the evening when he was at his farmyard situated on the way of village Barojh, he saw that the deceased was being forcibly taken by the appellant towards his home while Sukarti Bai was saying that she will not go, on which, she was subjected to blows of stick on her head by the appellant. The blood also profused from her head and due to such injuries Sukarti Bai was feeling uneasy. Thereafter he informed such incident to Set Singh Sarpanch who assured him that he will see the matter in the morning. Accordingly, the version stated in the missing person report regarding beating of the deceased by the appellant is proved by this eye witness of such event. He further stated that he along with Phool Singh and Khalkiya went to the house of nehru Singh to search the deceased, whom they found there and on asking about Sukarti Bai Nehru Singh told them that he left her on the way from where she might have gone to village Bartola, on which, they brought Nehru Singh with him at his residence where in presence of sarpanch Set Singh, appellant Nehru Singh stated that he asked Sukarti bai to go at his residence but she did not come and said that she will reside at Barojh. In further averments he stated that on verification, the deceased was not found at Bartola. After returning from Bartola, khalkiya accompanied with Set Singh Sarpanch went to police station for lodging the report. In further averments he stated that on verification, the deceased was not found at Bartola. After returning from Bartola, khalkiya accompanied with Set Singh Sarpanch went to police station for lodging the report. On going through his cross examination the facts stated by him regarding beating of Sukarti Bai by the appellant, is remained intact. This witness has also proved that before recovery of the dead body of Sukarti Bai, she was lastly seen with the appellant while she was being beaten by him by means of stick and sustained the injuries with bleeding. The presence of the appellant with the deceased at the alleged place of beating has been proved by the nearest relative, the maternal uncle of the appellant, namely, Ram Singh (P. W. 4)although he turned hostile on other facts. He also stated that Nehru singh was taking the deceased to his home by catching hold her hand. At that time, deceased Sukarti Bai was not saying anything. In this manner the facts mentioned in the missing person report and Dehati nalishi with respect of the beating of the deceased by the appellant before her death has been proved by this witness. In the available set of the facts, this witness Suhablal appears to be independent and reliable as he is neither relative of any of the party nor interested in any of them. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid it has been established on record that a day before the recovery of the dead body of Sukarti Bai, she was lastly seen with the appellant while she was being beaten by the appellant by means of stick, kicks and fists for taking her to his residence and thereafter on the very next day she was found dead in some culvert near the field. The other examined witness Bhondu (P. W. 5) did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile while the other witnesses are examined either with respect of the investigation or preparation of different papers during investigation. ( 12. ) IN the aforesaid circumstance, the appellant was bound to explain that after causing the injury to Sukarti Bai where she was taken and left by the appellant. ( 12. ) IN the aforesaid circumstance, the appellant was bound to explain that after causing the injury to Sukarti Bai where she was taken and left by the appellant. In the lack of such explanation of the accused, there is sufficient circumstance on record to draw an inference that appellant was the only person who caused the alleged injuries to the deceased and none else and thereby he committed her murder. We have not found any evidence on record showing that between the aforesaid incident of evening and the time when the dead body was seen near the culvert, the deceased was seen in the company of any other person except the appellant. In such premises, the chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged murder of Sukarti Bai is complete. It is settled preposition of the law that if the complete chain of circumstances are found to be proved against the accused then his conviction is only the consequence of it. ( 13. ) IN the matter of Sahadevan alias Sagardevan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai- (2003)1 SCC 534 , the apex Court has held as under :- (19) THE last circumstance relied on by the courts below pertains to the stand taken by the appellants in the trial as to parting company with Vadivelu. Here we must notice that as discussed hereinabove, the prosecution has established the fact that vadivelu was seen in the company of the appellants from the morning of 5. 3. 1985 till atleast 5 p. m. on the same day, whem he was brought to his house and thereafter his dead body was found in the morning of 6. 3. 1985. Therefore, it has become obligatory onihe appellants to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them. This is On the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. . . . . . . . . . This is On the principle that a person who is last found in the company of another, if later found missing, then the person with whom he was last found has to explain the circumstances in which they parted company. . . . . . . . . . " In view of the aforesaid principle,on examining the case at hand, in the lack of any explanation of the appellant about parting the company of the deceased such dictum is applicable to the present case and, in such premises, the findings of the trial court holding conviction against the appellant do not require any interference at this stage. ( 14. ) SO far motive of the appellant to cause death of the deceased is concerned, although it has come on record that the ancestral property was partitioned and separated between the appellant and the deceased. The other examined witnesses, namely Khalkiya (P. W. 1), Suhablal (P. W. 2), Manna Singh (P. W. 3) and Ram Singh (P. W. 4) have not stated specifically that there was any dispute between the appellant and the deceased with respect of any of the property. But it is apparent and undisputed fact in the case that the deceased was not residing with the appellant and the property of the deceased was also not in possession of the appellant. She was residing with her brother Khalkiya (P. W. 1 ). Her land was also cultivated by one Pusua on sharing basis and, therefore, this possibility could not be ruled-out that in any case without consent of the deceased the appellant could not get her share of the property or only after her demise he could have got such property, so, the motive of the appellant could be assumed that in the temptation of the property he had committed the alleged murder. Even otherwise, if the circumstances connecting the appellant with the alleged crime is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt then the absence of motive would not hamper a conviction. Such principle is laid down by the Apex court in the matter of Sahadevan alias Sagardevan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai- (2003)1 SCC 534 , in which it was held as under:- "24. It is then. . . . . . . . Such principle is laid down by the Apex court in the matter of Sahadevan alias Sagardevan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai- (2003)1 SCC 534 , in which it was held as under:- "24. It is then. . . . . . . . This Court had held in the case of circumstantial evidence that if the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved beyond doubt, then the absence of motive would not hamper a conviction. . . . . . . . " ( 15. ) IT is also noted that in the accused statement in reply of the question No. 47 the appellant himself has categorically stated that due to the dispute of the property the witnesses have stated against him. In such premises, the findings of the trial court regarding motive of the appellant for committing the alleged crime dos not require any interference and deserves to be upheld. ( 16. ) SO far the argument of the appellant that the missing person report lodged by Khalkiya (P. W. 1) has not been proved by prescribed procedure is concerned, we would like to state here that such missing person report was written in the Rojnamcha Sanha at the instance of khalkiya (P. W. 1) by Head Constable Suresn Pandey (P. W. 10) and the same has been proved on record by such Head Constable by mentioning some material description of it. Such testimony of this witness has not been challenged in his cross-examination. Therefore, it could not be said that such Rojnamcha Sanha, the missing person report, the registration of the Marg and Dehati Nalishi have not been proved on record. All such papers have been duly proved by concerning witnesses and also by the investigating officer, therefore, such reports could not be held to be inadmissible on any ground. In any case, if some lacuna was left by the investigating agency while investigating the matter or subsequent to it then mere on technical ground, the person like appellant cannot be benefited by extending the acquittal. ( 17. ) SO far the decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the same are distinguishable on facts and also on the question decided in such cases and the question involved in the present matter. The same are discussed one by one. ( 17. ) SO far the decisions cited by the counsel for the appellant are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the same are distinguishable on facts and also on the question decided in such cases and the question involved in the present matter. The same are discussed one by one. (a) In the matter of Makhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1988 SC 1705 , the circumstantial evidence was not found against the accused person and on that count such law was laid down which is not the situation in the case at hand as discussed above. (b) In the matter of Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra-AIR 1993 SC 119, the accused gave evasive answers when asked about the whereabouts of the deceased on his interrogation by the police but the same was not proved and only on the basis of recovery of the dead body of the deceased which was found near the portion of the building occupied by him, the accused was not found connected with the alleged incident in any manner. Such situation is not available in the present case, hence on the facts such case is distinguishable. (c) In the matter of Inderjit Singh and ano. Vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1991 SC 1674 , the appellant was acquitted holding that no direct circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the crime was available. The factor of enmity was also considered in such case but in the case at hand not only the appellant/accused was lastly seen with the deceased but he was also seen by witness Suhablal while the deceased was being beaten by the appellant. In such premises this citation is also not helping to the appellant. (d) So far reported cases of this court in the matter of Ramanand Vs. State of M. P.-1995 JLJ-757, Suleman Vs. State of mp-1991 (1)MPWN-70 and Omprakash Vs. State of M. P.-2008 (1)MPLJ (Cri.)341 cited by the appellant are concerned, in view of the aforesaid appreciation and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Sahadevan alias Sagardevan (supra) , the same are not helping to the appellant. ( 18. State of M. P.-1995 JLJ-757, Suleman Vs. State of mp-1991 (1)MPWN-70 and Omprakash Vs. State of M. P.-2008 (1)MPLJ (Cri.)341 cited by the appellant are concerned, in view of the aforesaid appreciation and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Sahadevan alias Sagardevan (supra) , the same are not helping to the appellant. ( 18. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we have not found any perversity, error or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant, hence, this appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. It appears from the record that appellant was directed to be, and was, released on bail in pendency of the appeal. His bail bonds are hereby canceled and he is directed to surrender himself on or before 10. 8. 09 before the trial court to serve the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard.