Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1017 (MP)

Shiv Prasad @ Lalu v. State of M. P.

2014-08-14

AJIT SINGH, N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Gupta, J. -- 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and finding of sentence dated 19.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Beohari, District Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.204/2000, whereby he has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional RI. 2. The prosecution’s case in short is that on 15.5.2000 the appellant along with his wife/deceased Sona Bai left their house to collect Kande (cow dung cake) from a field at village Audari (Police Station Beohari, District Shahdol). At about 11:00 a.m. when the appellant and his wife did not come back to their house, Belabai (PW3) mother of the complainant Ramprasad @ Lallu (PW1) asked the complainant to search for them. Ramprasad found his brother (appellant) lying under a mango tree and some Kande (cow dung cake) and bamboo container were also lying near him. On asking, the appellant replied that he did not know about his wife. Thereafter, the complainant went to village Gariyari Jamuni to search the deceased Sona Bai in her parents’ house but she could not be found. Sarman (PW2) and Rampyare (PW12) were also sent by Belabai (PW3) to trace the deceased and they intimated that dead body of the deceased Sona Bai was lying near Jhabarhai, which was field of one Urmaliya. Various witnesses including the complainant and Bela Bai went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased Sona Bai. They found that the deceased had sustained various crushed injuries on her mouth, ear and nose caused by a bolder and one blood stained bolder was also found lying near the dead body of the deceased. When the witnesses asked the appellant about the incident then, the appellant tried to run away from the spot but Rampyare (PW12), Rajiv Lochan (PW9) and other witnesses had caught the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant confessed before them that he killed his wife. The complainant Ramprasad went to the police station and lodged the FIR Ex.P-2. The dead body of the deceased was taken by the police and sent for its postmortem. Dr. R.S. Pandey (PW15) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He found approximately eight injuries to the deceased caused by hard and blunt object. The complainant Ramprasad went to the police station and lodged the FIR Ex.P-2. The dead body of the deceased was taken by the police and sent for its postmortem. Dr. R.S. Pandey (PW15) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He found approximately eight injuries to the deceased caused by hard and blunt object. Due to such injuries, various bones of jaw, ribs etc. were also found broken. Her right lung was ruptured, right side of liver was also ruptured and concerned cavity was full of blood. He found that the deceased died due to injuries caused on brain, lung, liver and death of the deceased was homicidal. The Investigation Officer had also recovered a blood stained half shirt of the appellant. All such articles were collected during investigation and sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-19, blood stains were found present on the shirt recovered from the appellant. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC Beohari, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Shahdol and ultimately, it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari. 3. The appellant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea. Hence, no defence evidence was adduced. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution’s evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. In the present case, there is no ocular evidence and case depends upon the circumstantial evidence, therefore, it is necessary to consider each and every circumstance one by one to see as to whether, chain of circumstantial evidence is complete or not. First circumstance, which is proved by Dr. R.S. Pandey (PW15) that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Dr. R.S. Pandey has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-13. He found the following injuries caused to the deceased : (1) Multiple bruises involving whole left face, left jaw, chin, left maxillary area. Two lacerated wounds (a) 1” x 1/2” x 1/2”, (b) 1/2” x 1/2” x 1/4” over chin; (2) Four incised looking (lower side) wounds parallel to each other 3” x 1” size. He found the following injuries caused to the deceased : (1) Multiple bruises involving whole left face, left jaw, chin, left maxillary area. Two lacerated wounds (a) 1” x 1/2” x 1/2”, (b) 1/2” x 1/2” x 1/4” over chin; (2) Four incised looking (lower side) wounds parallel to each other 3” x 1” size. Also lateral aspect of right elbow taperity abrasion at medial ends; (3) Penetrating wounds irregular margin 3” x 1” deep upto parietal cavity; (4) Tearing left ear 1” x 1/3” x 1/4”; (5) Contusion 2” x 1” on left upper arm; (6) Lower 2½” x 1½” x 1” left forearm; (7) Right abrasion 4” x 3” left posterity; (8) Bruises over both eyes and frontal area (forehead). He found that all the above injuries to be ante mortem in nature and due to such injuries, the multiple fractures were found on head, jaw and ribs. Consequently, a head injury was caused to the deceased and her right lung and liver were also ruptured. Looking to the opinion given by Dr. Pandey, it is very much clear that the deceased sustained such injuries, which could be caused due to crush with the help of a bolder and, therefore, he has rightly opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 7. Second circumstance which is proved by the witnesses was the fact of last seen. Ramprasad @ Lallu (PW1), Sarman (PW2), Bela Bai (PW3), Bhagwat Prasad Pandey (PW8) have stated that on the date of incident, the deceased Sona Bai and the appellant left the house to collect Kande (cow dung cake) and thereafter, they did not come back upto 11:00 a.m. therefore, Ramprasad @ Lallu (PW1) as well as Sarman (PW2) and Rampyare (PW12) were being sent in search of the deceased, whereas the appellant was found lying under a mango tree. These witnesses are closed relatives to the appellant and there is no reason that they would falsely depose against the appellant. Under such circumstances, the testimony of these witnesses is acceptable and they have proved that the deceased went with the appellant to collect some Kanda (cow dung cake) and thereafter, she was missing. These witnesses are closed relatives to the appellant and there is no reason that they would falsely depose against the appellant. Under such circumstances, the testimony of these witnesses is acceptable and they have proved that the deceased went with the appellant to collect some Kanda (cow dung cake) and thereafter, she was missing. Hence, it is for the appellant to rebut the fact that as to how the deceased was separated with him and went to another place and the appellant did not give any explanation as to how the deceased left him. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the factum of last seen of the appellant with the deceased. 8. The witness Ramprasad @ Lallu (PW1), Sarman (PW2), Belabai (PW3), Harilal (PW5), Bhagwat Prasad Pandey (PW8) and Rajiv Lochan (PW9) have stated that when the appellant was asked about his wife then, he expressed his complete ignorance. Thereafter, he did not take any interest in search his wife and went to his house. When the dead body of the deceased Sona Bai was found at the spot and the witnesses asked the appellant as to how she died then, he tried to run away from the spot. These witnesses are also closed relatives of the appellant and their testimony cannot be disbelieved. Hence, the prosecution has proved the conduct of the appellant that soon after the incident, he did not inform anyone about the deceased, though he knew that she was lying dead at the spot. Also he did not take any interest to search the deceased and instead he went to his house and when he was asked as to how the deceased had died, he tried to escape from the spot. Such conduct of the appellanat also creates a circumstance against him. 9. Ramprasad @ Lallu, Sarman, Belabai, Jhalla, Harilal, Bhagwat Prasad Pandey and Rajiv Lochan have stated that when the appellant was held by the witnesses near the spot, he accepted his guilt and confessed that he killed his wife by crushing her with the help of a bolder. It is true that some witnesses like Ramdayal (PW10), Sundar (PW11) and Rampyare (PW12) have turned hostile but the closed relatives of the appellant have proved his extra judicial confession. It is true that some witnesses like Ramdayal (PW10), Sundar (PW11) and Rampyare (PW12) have turned hostile but the closed relatives of the appellant have proved his extra judicial confession. Also the complainant Ramprasad had lodged the FIR Ex.P-2 in which he had mentioned about extra judicial confession done by the appellant and therefore due to corroboration from the FIR, the testimony of the witnesses relating to extra judicial confession is also corroborated and it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant before his family members and the independent witnesses had confessed his guilt and this is also a circumstance against him. 10. ASI R.N. Shukla (PW17) has recovered a half shirt from the appellant and prepared a seizure memo Ex.P-15. Rajiv Lochan (PW9) the witness of seizure has turned hostile, whereas another witness Vishnu Datt Pandey was not examined before the trial Court. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of ASI R.N. Shukla, who recorded the statement of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act and thereafter, his half shirt was recovered. He had sealed the recovered shirt immediately and impression of seal was also affixed on the seizure memo Ex.P-15. The Forensic Science Laboratory’s report Ex.P-19 had found that a half shirt recovered from the appellant was stained with blood. This is also a circumstance against the appellant. 11. Some questions were asked to the various witnesses in the cross-examination that the appellant was insane and at the time of insanity, he had committed such a crime. The witnesses, who are relatives of the appellant have accepted the suggestion. If the appellant had done such a crime due to insanity then, without his treatment, he could not be cured, whereas he faced the entire trial without taking any plea that he was insane and till he is fully treated, his trial may be stayed or he may be released on bail on the ground of insanity. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found that the appellant could not prove his insanity. Also the trial was concluded within 4-5 months after the incident and thereafter, the appellant is in jail till today. In those 12-14 years, it was not observed by the jail authorities that the appellant was insane. Under such circumstances, the appellant has failed to prove that he had committed the crime due to insanity. 12. Also the trial was concluded within 4-5 months after the incident and thereafter, the appellant is in jail till today. In those 12-14 years, it was not observed by the jail authorities that the appellant was insane. Under such circumstances, the appellant has failed to prove that he had committed the crime due to insanity. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no reason as to why the appellant would kill his own wife and, therefore, the crime committed by him may fall within the purview of section 304 of the IPC. Looking to the injuries caused to the deceased, it would be apparent that the appellant had intended to kill the deceased otherwise there was no reason to cause so many injuries to the deceased by a bolder. For conviction of the offence under section 302 of the IPC, there is no need to prove the motive of the accused, if clear, cogent and reliable evidence is available. In this context, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab [ AIR 1956 SC 460 ], may be referred in which it is held that where a positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is not important. 13. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant had not intended to kill the deceased. On the contrary, looking to his overt act, his intention is apparent. If all the circumstances, which are proved against the appellant are considered simultaneously that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, she left her house along with the appellant and the appellant was the person who was with the deceased Sona Bai soon before the incident, the conduct of the appellant after missing of the deceased Sona Bai was strange that he did not give any answer to his brother relating to whereabouts of Sona Bai, he did not take any interest in search of Sona Bai and when he was asked about the death of the deceased then, he tried to escape. He had confessed his guilt before his relatives and respected person of the locality. Also the blood stains were found on his half shirt. After considering all such circumstances, no doubt remains that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of crime. He had confessed his guilt before his relatives and respected person of the locality. Also the blood stains were found on his half shirt. After considering all such circumstances, no doubt remains that the appellant alone is the perpetrator of crime. Since chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, it is established beyond doubt that the appellant killed his wife and therefore, the trial Court has rightly found him guilty of offence under section 302 of the IPC. 14. So far as the sentence is concerned, learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed a minimum sentence and therefore, no more leniency can be shown with the appellant. It is true that he has some small children and he is responsible to look after them but on any ground, the sentence of offence under section 302 of the IPC cannot be reduced then its lowest side. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the sentence directed by the trial Court. 15. On the basis of aforesaid reasons, the appeal appears to be not assailable on merits as well as on the question of sentence therefore, it cannot be accepted. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. .............