Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 333 (MP)

Jeer Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-03-21

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2012
Judgment In brief, the prosecution case is that on 22.6.2009 some prayer was being offered by the inhabitants of the village and different items of meals were to be cooked. It is said that Jhammulal (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') brought a Khadai and appellant brought three plates (thali). After the meals were over, at about 5.30 in the evening the appellant uplifted Khadai of the deceased and at that juncture deceased restrained him that why he is carrying his Khadai, on this appellant told that his plates have been misplaced therefore he is taking away his Khadai. On this point, some altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased, as a result of which appellant gave a slap to him and ran way. In the evening when complainant was carrying away his ox to provide water to them and when he was crossing in front of the house of the appellant, the complainant called the appellant and asked that why he has given a slap to his father, as a result of which appellant came out from his house and uplifted a stone and threw it on his father, as a result of which blood started oozing, from the injury and the deceased fell down. When the complainant tried to intervene in the matter, appellant told the complainant that he has already killed his father now he will also be murdered. Any how, the complainant got himself saved from the clutches of the appellant and when he tried to lift his father, he noticed that his father was already breathed his last. Thereafter the complainant came to his house and then along with his village Kotwar went to police station to lodge the FIR. On lodging of the First Information Report, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. A case was registered against the appellant. In furtherance to its investigation, the investigating agency arrived at the spot, prepared the spot map; arrested the accused; the stone which was used as weapon in the commission of the offence was seized; the ordinary and blood stained earth was seized; statements of witnesses were recorded; relevant seizure memos were prepared; statements of witnesses were recorded. After the investigation was over, a charge sheet was submitted in the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial. After the investigation was over, a charge sheet was submitted in the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the Trial Court for trial. The Trial Court on the basis of the allegations made in the charge sheet framed charge punishable under Section 302IPC against the appellant which he denied and requested for the trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as six prosecution witnesses and placed Ex. P.I to P. 10 the documents on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in support of his defence, he examined Ram Shila Bai (DW.1) and Methar as (DW.2). The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court came to hold that charge under Section 302 IPC has not been proved against the appellant but looking to their entire gamut of the matter, offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is proved against him and eventually convicted the appellant and passed the sentence Which is mentioned in the impugned judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that looking to the testimony of the eye witnesses it cannot be said that they are saying the true version, on the contrary it is submitted that looking to the evidence on record, no offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is made out against the appellant. An alternative submission has also been put forth that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that on account of pelting of stone by the appellant, deceased breathed his last and since there was no intention nor the appellant was having any knowledge that by his act of throwing a stone (near about 1 kg) the deceased would die thereof, at the most the case would come within the ambit and scope of Section 325 IPC and for which the appellant has already suffered jail sentence of about 4 years and has been sufficiently punished for the offence and the sin which he has committed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that for no rhyme or reason the appellant is entitled for any benefit indeed, the learned Trial Court has already taken a lenient view by altering the offence from one under Section 302 IPC to under section 304 Part II IPC. Since it has been proved that the appellant has committed the said offence, he has been rightly convicted and thereof, this appeal be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part. In the present case, prosecution has examined three persons as eye witnesses they are Sumon Singh (PW.2) and Methar (PW.3) and Pachkodi (PW.4). However, on the basis testimony of PW.4 it cannot be said that he was an eye witness because he arrived at the spot when the deceased was lying in an injured condition. However, on examining the testimony of other eye witness namely Sumon Singh (PW.2) and Methar (PW.3) it is gathered that altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant as a result of which, appellant picked up a stone and threw it on the person of the deceased which caused injury on his head as a result of which blood started oozing. The postmortem was conducted by Doctor Narendra Hanote (Pw.5) who has categorically stated that the deceased was having one lacerated wound 1x4 cm on the parietal region and except this injury there was no other injury on the person of the deceased. Thus, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that on account of pelting stone by the appellant on the person of the deceased he had died. The testimony of the eye witnesses is also corroborated by the evidence of autopsy surgeon and the post mortem report (Ex.P.7) of the deceased. Question is now for consideration as to what offence the appellant has committed. The testimony of the eye witnesses is also corroborated by the evidence of autopsy surgeon and the post mortem report (Ex.P.7) of the deceased. Question is now for consideration as to what offence the appellant has committed. Looking to the entire episode it is gathered that on account of a petty dispute, some altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant and later on when the complainant and the deceased were going across the house of the appellant, again altercation took place and at that juncture appellant picked up a stone and threw it on the head of the deceased as a result of which he died. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there was no intention of the appellant to cause death or he was having any knowledge that by his act the deceased would die. Hence, I am of the opinion that appellant has committed the offence under Sectoin325 IPC and therefore, he is directed to suffer four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. Ten Thousand in total. The entire amount of fine be paid to the family members of the deceased towards compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court is hereby directed to do the needful. In case appellant fails to deposit the amount, he shall further undergo jail sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment.