Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1523 (MP)

Bahorilal @ Nanho v. State of M. P.

2013-12-05

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, VIMLA JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT Shrivastava, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhnadon, District Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 73/2004 convicting the appellant under sections 302 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation, the accused has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Sans unnecessary details the facts lie in a narrow compass. For ready reference, it would be condign to mention here that on 25.6.2004 at 12.30 in the afternoon when Gend Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was sleeping in his home at that juncture appellant came and dealt Axe blows upon him. The incident was witnessed by son of the appellant Dinesh Singh. The wife of the appellant namely Parwati Bai was also present in the village to whom Dinesh told that the appellant has killed the deceased. After inflicting the injury to the deceased, the accused fled from the place of occurrence. The information was sent to the police and the police party arrived at the spot and started investigation. 3. 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 learned trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charge punishable under section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant. Needless to say the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/23, the documents on record. The defence of the accused person is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC but he did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence. 4. The learned trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that charge under section 302 IPC is proved against the appellant and eventually passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove. 5. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. 5. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having heard them, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the present case, appellant’s own son Dinesh Singh (PW 1) has deposed against his father and has categorically said that while his maternal grandfather (deceased) was sleeping in his home, at that juncture, appellant dealt Axe blow upon him as a result of which the deceased started weeping and after palpitating for sometime, the deceased breathed his last. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing has been carved out in order to disbelieve his statement. On the contrary, we find his testimony to be clear, cogent and trustworthy. True, this witness is a child witness and is a minor but we find that he is a competent witness as envisaged under section 118 of the Evidence Act. 8. The evidence of this witness has been further corroborated by the evidence of Parwatibai (PW 2) who is the wife of the appellant and daughter of the deceased. In very specific words in para 3, this witness has deposed that when she was coming to her father’s house, at that juncture, she found that her children were weeping. On being asked to her son Dinesh (PW 1) that why he is weeping he told that appellant had dealt Axe blow to the deceased. According to this witness, soon after the incident Dinesh has narrated the entire incident to her and, therefore, according to us, the testimony of this witness is admissible in evidence under section 157 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, we may profitably place reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 , paras 27 and 28. 9. The evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. R.S. Rajput (PW 8) who has found as many as five incised wounds on the person of the deceased which are also mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased Ex. 9. The evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Dr. R.S. Rajput (PW 8) who has found as many as five incised wounds on the person of the deceased which are also mentioned in the postmortem report of the deceased Ex. P/10 and we think it apposite to quote the injuries which the deceased had sustained which are as under:- (i) Incised wound 1¼” x ¼” bone deep left palm at back ; (ii) Incised wound 3/4” x 1/2” left side of face x bone cut; (iii) Incised wound 2” x 1/2” x cut bone occipital right side; (iv) incised wound 2” x 1/2” right side neck in middle bony deep; (v) Incised wound 1” x 1/2” x bone deep. Looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased on the face, occipital and on the neck region, we find that repeated blows of axe blows were given by the appellant to his own father-in-law in whose house he was living. Thus, according to us, the act of the appellant amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder. 10. We have examined the impugned judgment from different angles and we find that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court convicting the appellant for the charge punishable under section 302 IPC is based upon correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and thus, we do not find any error in it and we hereby extend our stamp of approval to those reasonings. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.