Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1051 (MP)

Rajendra v. State Of M. P.

2014-08-22

AJIT SINGH, N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : N. K. GUPTA, J. The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 1-12-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No. 369/1997 whereby the appellant has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for six months. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 23-4-1997 Madan Soni (PW-4), General Secretary of District Congress Committee had called a meeting of all the members in the party office situated near Saraswati Vachnalaya at Teenbatti, Sagar. A resolution against the accused Lokman was proposed to be passed in such a meeting. A slogan "Lokman Hatao Congress Bacho" was also published. At about 12 to 12:15 P.M. the deceased Naval, Madan Soni (PW-4), Vijay Sahu (PW-13), Brij Kishore Rusia (PW-17) and other members of the party were present near Saraswati Vachnalaya and chatting amongst themselves before the proposed meeting. Suddenly accused Lokman Khatik along with other three accused persons came to the spot in a car and got down near the handpump of Teenbatti. The appellant along with accused Jitendra @ Jittu moved forward towards the deceased Naval Purohit. Lokman by waving his hand to Jitendra @ Jittu identified Naval Purohit. Accused Jitendra @ Jittu reached near deceased Naval Purohit and fired a shot from his pistol due to which Naval fell down on the ground. Thereafter all the four accused persons disappeared in the same car. Rajkishore (PW-1) and Ramesh Datt Dubey (PW-5) took the deceased Naval to the District Hospital, Sagar in an autoriksha, but he succumbed to the injuries. The police recovered the dead body of the deceased and sent it for post-mortem. Dr. Rakesh Kumar Khare (PW-12) had performed the post-mortem of the deceased and gave his report Ex.P20. He found an entry wound of gun shot at left maxillary region. On opening of skull, a fracture of left zygoma and different wounds were found. Base of skull was found fractured. Brain matter was also lacerated. Maxillary was damaged. There was a commuted fracture on the right temporal bone and one piece of bullet was found on the right temporal muscle. Two pieces of bullets were recovered from the head of the deceased. According to the opinion of Dr. Base of skull was found fractured. Brain matter was also lacerated. Maxillary was damaged. There was a commuted fracture on the right temporal bone and one piece of bullet was found on the right temporal muscle. Two pieces of bullets were recovered from the head of the deceased. According to the opinion of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. 3. The appellant Rajendra abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident. At the time of incident he was present at Chakarghat Temple in a Yagya. In defence Premnarayan Mishra (DW-1), Constable Jagannath (DW-2), Head Constable Kailashnath (DW-3), Gangaprasad Tiwari (DW-4), Navin Kaithoriya (DW-5) and Gorelal Chourasiya (DW-6) were examined as defence witnesses. Out of them witness Gangaprasad Tiwari (DW-4) gave his statement relating to plea of alibi raised by the appellant Rajendra. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Sagar after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted all the accused persons including the present appellant of the offence under section 302 or 302/34 of Indian Penal Code whereas accused Jitendra @ Jittu was also convicted of the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced as mentioned above. 5. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants Lokman and Bhupendra have expired, and therefore their appeal have turned abated. Since accused Jitendra @ Jittu has completed his entire sentence, therefore vide order dated 16-5-2012 his appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. In the present case Shailendra Singh (PW-3), Madan Soni (PW-4), Ramesh Datt Dubey (PW-5), Sachin Jain (PW-18), Sunil Kumar Yadav (PW-19), Anoop Kumar Vaidya (PW-20), Santosh Shrivastava (PW-21), Anil Kumar Jain (PW-22), Raja Thakur (PW-23), Rakesh Gupta (PW-24), Mukesh Shukla (PW-25), Rajkumar Raikwar (PW-29) and Sanjay Babu Soni (PW-30) were examined as eye-witnesses. Out of them, Sachin Jain, Sunil Kumar Yadav, Anoop Kumar Vaidya, Santosh Shrivastava, Anil Kumar Jain, Mukesh Shukla, Rajkumar Raikwar and Sanjay Babu Soni have turned hostile. The remaining eye-witnesses have stated that deceased Naval Purohit was standing with other witnesses near Saraswati Vachnalaya. Out of them, Sachin Jain, Sunil Kumar Yadav, Anoop Kumar Vaidya, Santosh Shrivastava, Anil Kumar Jain, Mukesh Shukla, Rajkumar Raikwar and Sanjay Babu Soni have turned hostile. The remaining eye-witnesses have stated that deceased Naval Purohit was standing with other witnesses near Saraswati Vachnalaya. Suddenly the appellant with other accused persons came in a car and got down at the spot. Accused Lokman pointed out the deceased Naval Purohit to accused Jitendra @ Jittu and thereafter Jitendra @ Jittu fired from his pistol causing death of the deceased. The testimony of these eye-witnesses is duly corroborated by time lodged FIR Ex.P1 and the post-mortem report Ex.P20 proved by Dr. Rakesh Kumar Khare (PW-12). The single firearm injury was found to the deceased and hence the post-mortem report was corroborative to the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 8. The appellant took the plea of alibi that he was not present at the spot. In defence Ganga Prasad Tiwari (DW-4) was examined to show that appellant Rajendra was present in the Chakraghat temple to perform a Yagya. However, Pandit Ganga Prasad Tiwari could not say about the exact time as and when appellant Rajendra left the function. To prove the plea of alibi, there should be some documentary evidence to show that the appellant was present at any other place at the time of incident. The oral testimony of the witness Ganga Prasad Tiwari is not sufficient to prove the plea of alibi raised by the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly discarded the plea of alibi. 9. All the accused persons had also taken the plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. It is true that there was a political rivalry between the deceased Naval Purohit and accused Lokman. But enmity is a double edged weapon, that means due to enmity the accused could assault the victim or due to that enmity the appellant could be falsely implicated by the victim, and therefore the evidence of witnesses should be examined minutely. In the present case, a meeting was to be held against the accused Lokman by different members of a particular political party and the deceased Naval Purohit was the President of the Congress Seva Dal, who had to preside over the meeting. Hence there was political enmity between the deceased and accused Lokman, whereas appellant Rajendra was the nephew of accused Lokman. Hence there was political enmity between the deceased and accused Lokman, whereas appellant Rajendra was the nephew of accused Lokman. It is true that the incident was witnessed by so many persons and out of them many witnesses were the followers of the deceased. At the same time many members of that political party have turned hostile. Hence the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they were the members of the political party and also the followers of deceased Naval Purohit. Raja Thakur (PW-23) was a student and he did not accept that he was the member of the political party. However, he went to the spot to attend the meeting. He is not closely connected with the deceased but still he has stated that appellant Rajendra along with other three accused persons boarded down from the car and thereafter accused Lokman pointed out the deceased Naval Purohit to accused Jitendra @ Jittu who by firing a shot killed the deceased Naval Purohit. Under these circumstances, looking to the uniformity in the evidence given by various eye-witnesses, their testimony is acceptable and it was not the case in which appellant Rajendra or accused Jitendra @ Jittu were falsely implicated. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is sufficient evidence against accused Jitendra @ Jittu that he murdered the deceased Naval Purohit by firing a shot from his pistol. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar has rightly convicted the accused Jitendra @ Jittu for commission of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 11. It is apparent that the appellant did not make any assault on the deceased and he had no firearm with him at the time of incident. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the witnesses have exagratted about the conduct of appellant Rajendra during the incident. For example, witness Ramesh Datt Dubey (PW-5) has stated that appellant Rajendra exhorted the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu to kill the deceased Naval Purohit. However, it was not the case of the prosecution. If appellant Rajendra would have exhorted the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu that fact would have been told by Madan Soni (PW-4) and complainant Rajkishore (PW-1), who had lodged the FIR Ex.P1. Complainant Rajkishore did not mention in the FIR that appellant Rajendra exhorted the accused Jitendra @ Jittu to kill the deceased. If appellant Rajendra would have exhorted the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu that fact would have been told by Madan Soni (PW-4) and complainant Rajkishore (PW-1), who had lodged the FIR Ex.P1. Complainant Rajkishore did not mention in the FIR that appellant Rajendra exhorted the accused Jitendra @ Jittu to kill the deceased. Hence, the allegation as made by witness Ramesh Datt Dubey and other eye-witnesses appears to be an improvement in the factual position. 12. It is stated by some of the eye-witnesses that on pointing out the deceased, appellant Rajendra and co-accused Bhupendra had also moved forward along with the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu. However, this fact is also not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P1, and therefore it is an improvement after lodging the FIR. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be acceptable that the testimony of the eye-witnesses can be accepted, but their exaggeration should be discarded. 13. According to the testimony of various eye-witnesses which was duly corroborated by the FIR Ex.P1, it would be apparent that there is an allegation against appellant Rajendra that he came with Lokman and Jitendra @ Jittu in a car. He got down from the car and thereafter when the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu fired from his pistol, he disappeared from the spot. Rajkishore (PW-1) has stated that after firing from a pistol by accused Jitendra @ Jittu, deceased Naval Purohit sustained a fatal injury due to which he fell down, and therefore attention of witnesses was towards the deceased Naval Purohit and he could not see as to how the accused persons left the spot. However, when he saw, he found that accused persons have disappeared from the spot and the car was also taken from the spot. Hence, it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant disappeared from the spot along with accused Lokman or Jitendra @ Jittu. 14. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that all the witnesses including Ramesh Datt Dubey (PW-5) have accepted that when the accused Jitendra @ Jittu alighted down from the car, he did not have a pistol in his hand. On pointing out the deceased Naval Purohit, he took out the pistol from his pocket and thereafter fired from that pistol. On pointing out the deceased Naval Purohit, he took out the pistol from his pocket and thereafter fired from that pistol. In the FIR Ex.P1, it is clearly mentioned that after pointing out the deceased Naval Purohit, accused Jitendra @ Jittu took out a pistol from his pocket and fired with that pistol, and therefore appellant Rajendra had no chance to know that accused Jitendra @ Jittu had hidden a pistol in his pocket. It is further submitted that as per allegation, the appellant came with accused Jitendra @ Jittu and Lokman. He did not participate in the crime, but when the accused Jitendra @ Jittu fired from his pistol, he also disappeared along with other accused persons. There is no evidence advanced by the prosecution that there was a meeting of mind between all of the accused persons when they came to the spot in a car, and therefore by mere presence at the spot, the common intention of appellant Rajendra cannot be presumed. The learned senior advocate for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Mithu Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 1929 , Gajjan Singh vs. State of Punjab, [ (1976) 3 SCC 391 , Kashmira Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1651 and Girja Shankar vs. State of U. P., AIR 2004 SC 1808 to show as to when the common intention of the accused shall be counted in such circumstances. It is held in the aforesaid judgments that the common intention may be even developed at the spot. However, the development of common intention can be considered on the basis of overt act of the accused done by him along with the co-accused. The entire position of the common intention depends upon the factual position of that particular case. However, in the case of Mithu Singh (supra) the factual position was approximately similar. The portion of para 6 of that judgment may be read as under :- "6..............It is true that it is difficult, if not impossible, to collect and produce direct evidence in proof of the intention of the accused and mostly an inference as to intention shall have to be drawn from the acts or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances, as available. An inference as to common intention shall not be readily drawn; the culpable liability can arise only if such inference can be drawn with a certain degree of assurance........" In the case of Mithu Singh (supra) it was found that Mithu Singh knew that his co-accused Bharpur Singh was armed with a pistol, however his common intention was not found established with the co-accused. 15. If the ratio laid down in the case of Mithu Singh (supra) is applied in the present case, then it is established against appellant Rajendra that he came to the spot along with other accused persons, but accused Lokman did not point out the deceased Naval Purohit to the appellant. Appellant Rajendra was unarmed. He did not commit any supporting act to help the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu, who took out a pistol from his pocket soon before the incident and possibility cannot be ruled out that appellant Rajendra had no knowledge that the accused Jitendra @ Jittu had hidden a pistol in his pocket. Under these circumstances, the overt acts of appellant Rajendra as proved by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove his common intention with the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu. 16. It is possible that appellant Rajendra came to the spot to give a company to his co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu. However, the conviction could not be directed on the basis of possibility or suspicion. Hence, it is not proved beyond doubt that appellant Rajendra had any common intention with the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu to kill the deceased Naval Kishore. When such an act was committed by the companion, the appellant had no option except to leave the spot. Hence, if he disappeared soon after the incident, then by his such conduct alone his common intention cannot be presumed. Under these circumstances, as discussed above appellant Rajendra has neither committed any crime on his own nor he had any common intention with the co-accused Jitendra @ Jittu, and therefore appellant Rajendra cannot be convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code or any inferior offence of the similar nature either directly or with the help of section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting appellant Rajendra for the aforesaid offence. 17. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present criminal appeal filed by appellant Rajendra can be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting appellant Rajendra for the aforesaid offence. 17. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present criminal appeal filed by appellant Rajendra can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. The conviction as well as the sentence directed against appellant Rajendra is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges appended against him. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back, if he has deposited the same before the trial Court. 18. At present appellant Rajendra is on bail, his presence is no more required before this Court, and therefore it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged.