Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 155 (MP)

Ramdayal v. State of M. P.

2011-02-03

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal under section 374 CrPC filed by the appellants, who are two in number, is directed against their conviction under section 307/34 IPC. Vide judgment of the Court below dt. 8th December 2004 in Sessions Trial Case No. 107/04, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and of Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. I have also perused the entire record of the trial Court and have given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the both the parties. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case giving arise to this appeal are as follows : (i) The appellants were tried in the Court below for the offence under section 307/34 IPC on accusation against them that they in furtherance of their common intention had set PW 4 Gajan Lal ablazed by pouring petrol on him in the incident that took place at National Auto Center sawarkar Market, A.B. Road, around 8 a.m. on 25.2.2004. The injured PW 4 had suffered 42% bum injuries and had remained in hospital as an indoor patient for about a month. The defence set up by the appellants during trial was that the injured PW 4 Gajan Lal had problem with his wife, who was not staying with him and for that reason he got himself burnt by sprinkling kerosene oil over his body. According to the appellant, they were falsely implicated by injured PW 4 Gajan Lal and his father-in-law PW 5 Mangal Singh, as they were suspecting him of taking away wife of PW 4 Gajan Lal from his custody. (ii) The injured PW 4 Gajan Lal was got medically examined by PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta and he has proved the MLC of the injured in his statement as document Ex. P/4. As per testimony of PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta, the burn injuries suffered by the injured were by petrol and not by kerosene oil. No suggestion was given to PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta and he has proved the MLC of the injured in his statement as document Ex. P/4. As per testimony of PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta, the burn injuries suffered by the injured were by petrol and not by kerosene oil. No suggestion was given to PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta that the injured had suffered burn injuries by kerosene oil, rather Dr.C.M. Gupta in his cross-examination has amplified that he has opined the burn injuries to have been suffered by the injured by petrol as he him self had been using petrol for his vehicle. From the testimony of PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta, no manner of doubt is left to conclude, that the injured had suffered injuries in the incident by pouring of petrol over his body. The question that now arises is whether the appellants were responsible for the burn injuries suffered by the injured in the incident. (iii) The RR of the incident was lodged by PW 5 Mangal Singh, father-in-law of the injured PW 4 Gajan Lal. He in his testimony has testified that on the date of incident he had received an information around 8.00-8.30 a.m. while he was busy in his business of selling vegetables that his son-in-law PW 4 Gajan Lal had been burnt by the appellants. He in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion of the defence that the appellants have been falsely implicated because he had withheld an amount of Rs.5000/- due from his to appellant No.2 and further on account of the fact that his daughter was not residing with his injured son-in-law PW 4 Gajan Lal. (iv) PW 4 Gajan Lal was the star witness of the prosecution and he in his testimony has categorically deposed that appellant No.2 had caught of his hands and appellant No. 1 had poured petrol over his body and then set him ablazed. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he himself had poured kerosene oil over his body and set himself ablazed because his wife was not staying with him. He further denied the suggestion of the defence that he used to suspect appellant No. 1 of enticing away his wife. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he himself had poured kerosene oil over his body and set himself ablazed because his wife was not staying with him. He further denied the suggestion of the defence that he used to suspect appellant No. 1 of enticing away his wife. There is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination either of PW 4 or PW5, which may create a doubt on their version regarding the manner and the role attributed to the appellant in the incident as stated by them of their respective testimony. 4. Mr. Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the appellants, who are real brothers, were falsely implicated by PW 5, Mangal Singh because they were on inimical terms since the injured PW 4, Gajan Lal used to suspect them of taking away his wife from his custody. Learned counsel has further argued that PW 4 and PW 5, who are related to each other as son-in-law and father-in-law are interested witnesses and the Court should not give much credence to their testimony, as according to him the independent public witnesses of the incident namely P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. This argument in my opinion has no force. Merely because public witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 were hostile to the prosecution case cannot be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW 4 and PW 5 who both were the star witnesses of the prosecution. In fact the testimony of PW 4 and PW 5 find ample corroboration from the testimony of PW 3 Dr. C.M. Gupta. The alleged previous animosity between the parties is a double edged weapon and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the alleged animosity between them cannot be said to be a ground for false implication of the appellants. 5. From the facts of the prosecution on record, it stands proved that the appellants were the real culprits responsible for pouring petrol over the body 0 the injured PW 4 Gajan Lal, on account of which he suffered 42% burn injuries in the incident. The intention on their part to kill the injured by their act of pouring petrol and then setting him ablazed is clearly borne out. The intention on their part to kill the injured by their act of pouring petrol and then setting him ablazed is clearly borne out. It cannot be believed for a moment that the appellants would not know the consequences of their act 0 setting a person ablazed by pouring petrol over him. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court against the appellants. The said judgment of the Court below is therefore affirmed. 7. Mr. Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the impugned sentence of appellant No.1 was not suspended and according to him he might have been released from jail after completing his term of imprisonment of four years awarded to him by the Court below. In view of the same, the Jail Superintendent, Gwalior is directed to release appellant No. 1 immediately, if not already released, in case he has already completed the sentence awarded to him by the Court below. 8. As far as appellant No.2 is concerned, he had remained in custody as under trial prisoner from 27th February 2004 to 4th March 2004 and thereafter from the date of impugned judgment dt. 8.12.2004 till his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order 2nd February 2005. Appellant No.2 is directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the Court below. In case he fails to surrender of his own, then the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Shivpuri is directed to initiate necessary process for ensuring arrest of appellant No.2 and send him to jail for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed.