Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 145 (MP)

Chhabbilal S/O Gohra Goud v. State Of M. P.

2013-01-31

RAKESH SAKSENA, VIMLA JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT : VIMLA JAIN, J. Appellant Chabbilal Goud preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11-1-2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 129/2006, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Provision Sentence Under section 302 of Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. It is the allegation against appellant/accused Chhabbilal that on 22-7-2006 in the afternoon at Village Naijhar, he intentionally and knowingly caused MARPEET with his wife Sonabai and committed her murder. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 22-7-2006, complainant Sukhniyabai invited her brother-in-law (DEVAR) appellant Chhabbilal at her house for meal. Accused Chhabbilal, his wife Sonabai (since deceased), Phuliabai and Deva Goud came to the house of Sukhniyabai and consumed liquor. Accused Chhabbilal and his wife Sonabai also had their meal. Thereafter, Sonabai slept in the house of Sukhniyabai on a cot (KHATIYA). Phuliabai, Deva Goud, Ratan Goud and Chhotelal had left the house of Sukhniyabai. After around "½ an hour, accused Chhabilal came there and asked Sonabai to go home but Sonabai refused to go home. On her refusal, the accused slapped her twice. Sukhniyabai requested him not to beat Sonabai. Chhabbilal replied that Sukhniyabai was his wife and he would take her to home. Thereafter, he took Sonabai on his shoulder and went towards his house. Chhabilal threw his wife Sonabai on the floor in front of the stairs of his house and started giving fists blows and dragged her legs. Subbal Goud, a neighbour of Chhabbilal, came there and scolded Chhabbilal. Thereafter, Chhabbilal forcibly kept his wife Sonabai on his shoulder and entered into his house. In the evening, a news spread in the village that Chhabbilal had killed his wife Sonabai. Sukhniyabai (Bhabhi of Chhabbilal), Sarpanch, Upsarpanch and other members of the village reached the house of accused Chhabbilal. Accused Chhabbilal had admitted in front of the villagers that he caused MARPEET with his wife and committed his murder. Dead body of Sonabai was lying in the room of accused Chhabbilal and the blood was oozing out from her mouth. There were number of injuries on the body of Sonabai. Accused Chhabbilal had admitted in front of the villagers that he caused MARPEET with his wife and committed his murder. Dead body of Sonabai was lying in the room of accused Chhabbilal and the blood was oozing out from her mouth. There were number of injuries on the body of Sonabai. On the request made by the villagers, Sukhniyabai (PW.5) went to Police Station Gughri along with her husband Ratan and Kotwar Rameshdas. As the direct road towards Gughri Police Station from Naijhar was closed due to heavy rains, complainant Sukhniyabai went to Police Station Gughri via Bichhia and lodged the report on 22-7-2006 at about 11:10 p.m. On the basis of her information, Marg Intimation (Ex.P/11) and First Information Report (Ex.P/3) were registered. On 23-6-2006 in the night, the police party reached the spot and prepared Panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P/2). The dead body of Sonabai was sent for post-mortem. On the basis of the statement on memorandum, bloodstained shirt was recovered from the house of accused Chhabbilal and he was arrested. 4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla. On being charged with the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and complete innocence and claimed to be tried with the prayer that he had been falsely implicated in the case. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and proved the documents (Ex.P/1 to P/22) on record. The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 6. The learned Court below, after scanning the evidence found the charges proved against the appellant, convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. 7. This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has committed an error of law in holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has prayed that appeal of appellant/accused deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has committed an error of law in holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has prayed that appeal of appellant/accused deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of conviction and order of sentence. 9. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the finding of the trial Court. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. PW.15 Dr. Parasram Dhurve conducted the post-mortem of deceased Sonabai vide Ex.P/7 and found following injuries on her person :- INTERNAL INJURIES 1. Scratch mark on left side of chest. 2. Inflammation on right side of knee joint. 3. Echymosis on both back side of chest. 4. Injury on mouth with clotted blood. Opinion :- The cause of death of Smt. Sonabai, Aged 28 years, W/o Chhabbilal Goud, Police Station Gughri is shock due to severe bleeding from mouth and internal vital organ, duration within 26 hours from performing post-mortem. Homicidal in nature. 12. There is no challenge from any side to the fact that death of deceased Sonabai was homicidal. PW.15 Dr. Parasram Dhurve found four injuries on the person the deceased and as per his opinion, Sonabai died as a result of shock due to severe bleeding from mouth and internal vital organ. Therefore, it is apparent that injuries caused on her person were fatal in nature and sufficient to cause her death in due course. Therefore, looking to the nature of injuries, death of Sonabai appears to be homicidal. 13. PW.5 Sukhniyabai, who is sister-in-law (JETHANI) of deceased Sonabai, has stated in her deposition that on the day of the incident, accused Chhabbilal had gone to the house of Phuliabai for doing some BEGAR work. She did not know as to what Chhabbilal consumed at the house of Phuliabai. Phuliabai had offered liquor to Sonabai. She did not know as to how many persons had consumed liquor. Deceased Sonabai consumed liquor at her house. She only invited Chhabbilal at her house for meal. Sonabai, Phuliabai and Deva had also come to her house for meal. Before having meal, they had consumed liquor at her house. Sonabai had slept at her house. Chhabbilal, Ratan, Deva and Phuliabai had left her house. Deceased Sonabai consumed liquor at her house. She only invited Chhabbilal at her house for meal. Sonabai, Phuliabai and Deva had also come to her house for meal. Before having meal, they had consumed liquor at her house. Sonabai had slept at her house. Chhabbilal, Ratan, Deva and Phuliabai had left her house. After sometime, Chhabbilal had come to her house as Sonabai was sleeping there and slapped twice to Sonabai and when she requested not to beat Sonabai, Chhabbilal said that he is her husband and what he wants he will do with her. She also stated that Chhabbilal threw her on the floor and took Sonabai to his house. Thereafter, what happened, she had not seen. Before the sun-set, accused Chhabbilal had taken his wife Sonabai from her house and in the evening, she came to know that Chhabbilal had killed his wife Sonabai. She went to the house of Chhabbilal and found that the body of Sonabai was lying on his corridor. She did not know as to where Sonabai sustained injuries. All the villagers were present on the spot. She had seen the dead body of Sonabai. She had wound on her back. She went to Police Station Gughri along with her husband Ratan and Kotwar and lodged the report (Ex.P/3). 14. PW.7 Harish Chandra Sahu, who is a Upsarpanch of Village Naijhar, has stated in his deposition that on the day of the incident, he was at the Bazar Square. Accused Chhabbilal came there and said to him that some quarrel had taken place between Sonabai and him. He had caused MARPEET with her and now she was not responding. At that time, Chamanlal, former Sarpanch Ratnu and Phagulal were also present there. Thereafter, he along with all persons went to the house of Chhabbilal and found that Sonabai was lying on the corridor of the house of accused Chhabbilal. She was dead and blood was oozing out from her mouth. Police party came to the spot in the night and next day they started their investigation. This witness also stated that the dead body of Sonabai was recovered from the house of accused Chhabbilal in his presence and at the instance of accused Chhabbilal, a bloodstained shirt was also recovered from his house. 15. There is no doubt that dead body of deceased was lying in the corridor of the house of appellant/accused. This witness also stated that the dead body of Sonabai was recovered from the house of accused Chhabbilal in his presence and at the instance of accused Chhabbilal, a bloodstained shirt was also recovered from his house. 15. There is no doubt that dead body of deceased was lying in the corridor of the house of appellant/accused. From the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is apparent that the incident culminated in the MARPEET by appellant with deceased, erupted from consumption of liquor by deceased and refusal to go to her house with appellant. It appears from the record that there was no previous dispute or quarrel between the appellant and deceased. Appellant did not use any weapon for assaulting the deceased for causing bodily injuries to her as is likely to cause her death. In the instant case, all these facts are established from the record. The incident took place without any premeditation of the appellant. Evidence, examined in its entirety, shows that without any premeditation, the appellant committed the offence, which however was done with the intention to cause a bodily injury only, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused her death. 16. In view of our foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is guilty of an offence punishable under section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and not under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Hence, we set aside the impugned conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life rendered by the trial Court under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Instead, we convict the appellant under section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone, which comes to six years and six months and we direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.