Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1343 (MP)

Narendra v. State of M. P.

2014-10-16

AJIT SINGH, N.K.GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Gupta, J. -- 1. Both the appeals are being decided by this judgment because each of them arise from a common judgment dated 13.4.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T.No.161/2004. 2. The appellants have preferred the present appeals being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, whereby each of them has been convicted of offence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- respectively. In lieu of payment of fine amount, default sentence was also imposed. 3. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that, on 8.6.2004, Yashwant s/o Kamal Singh (PW11) had informed SHO, Police Station Malajkhand, District Balaghat that his father Kamal Singh was found dead and his body was hanging from a tree. A merg intimation, Ex.P-17 was recorded and an enquiry was initiated. In enquiry, it was found that there was a dispute between Kamal Singh and his sons Victor and Narendra (the appellants) relating to partition of the land. On 7.6.2004, at about 9 p.m., the deceased Kamal Singh came to the village Bhelwatola along with his brothers Jaswant Singh (PW1) and Roman Singh (PW2) to take a bullock cart from his house to village Righuwatola, so that it could be used in preparation of marriage arrangements in the house of Jaswant Singh (PW1). When the deceased Kamal Singh was going with Jaswant Singh on that bullock cart, the appellants quarrelled with the deceased and pulled him out from the bullock cart and assaulted him with their fists. Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh went back to Righuwatola with that bullock cart. On the next day, the deceased Kamal singh was found hanged from a tree by means of a lungi. On 11.6.2004, the police registered a criminal case. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Dr.Madan Meshram (PW7) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and gave his report, Ex.P-11. He found that the deceased had 3 to 4 injuries on his body. He had a contusion on his forehead, 2 lacerations were found on his left calf and left middle toe. Thyroid cartilage was found depressed. Black blood was deposited under the skin on the wound found on the forehead. Both the lungs were congested and Petechial hemorrhages were found on them. According to Dr. He had a contusion on his forehead, 2 lacerations were found on his left calf and left middle toe. Thyroid cartilage was found depressed. Black blood was deposited under the skin on the wound found on the forehead. Both the lungs were congested and Petechial hemorrhages were found on them. According to Dr. Madan Meshram, the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by throttling and hence, death of the deceased was homicidal. 4. The appellants were interrogated by the police then, they gave their statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act and consequently, a lathi (stick) was recovered from the appellant Victor. One note, Ex.P-1 was also found in the box of deceased, in which he had mentioned about the behaviour of the appellants and their mother. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Baihar who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat. 5. The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they had been falsely implicated in the matter. They accepted that they had a dispute with the deceased. However, the witness Jaswant Singh (PW1) has falsely implicated the appellants in the case. But, no defence evidence was adduced by them. 6. First Additional Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution’s evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. In the present case, there is no ocular evidence. Entire case depends upon the chain of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it would be proper to consider each and every circumstance one by one. First circumstance proved by the prosecution is that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Dr. Madan Meshram (PW7) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Kamal Singh and gave his report, Ex.P-11. He found 4 injuries on the body of the deceased but, 3 out of 4 injuries were simple in nature. Assault caused to the deceased was not the actual cause of his death but, Dr. Meshram found that thyroid cartilage of the deceased was found depressed and he died due to throttling. He found 4 injuries on the body of the deceased but, 3 out of 4 injuries were simple in nature. Assault caused to the deceased was not the actual cause of his death but, Dr. Meshram found that thyroid cartilage of the deceased was found depressed and he died due to throttling. Dead body of the deceased was found hanging from a tree with a lungi but, if the deceased had committed suicide then, his thyroid cartilage would not have been found depressed in such a manner and throttling could not be caused by hanging on a tree with help of a lungi. In that case, there should have been a ligature band over the entire neck of the deceased. The deceased could not be hanged in such a manner accidentally and therefore, the death of the deceased was neither suicidal nor accidental. Hence, it was homicidal in nature. 9. The second circumstance proved by the prosecution is that the appellants had inimical relations with the deceased. Jaswant Singh (PW1) and Roman Singh (PW2) have stated that on the date of incident, the deceased Kamal Singh along with Jaswant Singh went to his house at Bhelwatola to fetch a bullock cart from the house of the deceased. Jaswant Singh and Kamal Singh took a bullock cart and left for village Righuwatola to take that bullock cart to the house of Jaswant Singh but, the appellants pulled the deceased away from the bullock cart and started quarrelling with him over some accounts. They assaulted him by fists and thereafter, Roman Singh and Jaswant Singh left the village Bhelwatola with that bullock cart. A suggestion was given to these witnesses that relations of the witnesses with the appellants were not good. However, it was established by these two witnesses that there was no common property between these witnesses and their brother Kamal Singh, whereas the deceased Kamal Singh did not make partition of his land amongst his children. Adleena (PW6) mother of the appellants who turned hostile has also accepted that when the deceased was taking the bullock cart along with his brother Jaswant, the appellants pulled the deceased away from the bullock cart and a quarrel took place between them. Adleena (PW6) mother of the appellants who turned hostile has also accepted that when the deceased was taking the bullock cart along with his brother Jaswant, the appellants pulled the deceased away from the bullock cart and a quarrel took place between them. Hence, due to corroboration of evidence given by hostile witness Adleena, mother of the appellants, the testimony of Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh appears to be believable that the appellants had inimical relations with the deceased Kamal Singh though they were sons of the deceased Kamal Singh. 10. Investigation Officer Shri K.S. Chouhan (PW9) has recovered a document, Ex.P-1 from a box of the deceased, wherein it is mentioned by the deceased that the appellants have tortured him and quarreled with him from time to time. However, that document has already been crossed by various lines. Document, Ex.P-1 was seized in presence of Sammal Singh (PW3) and Premlal. Premlal has corroborated that such a letter was found in the personal box of the deceased Kamal Singh. However, he has accepted in his cross-examination that the document, Ex.P-1 was shown to him by the police when he appended his signature on the seizure memo, Ex.P-5. Jaswant Singh (PW1) and Roman Singh have stated that on getting the information that the deceased was found hanged, they went to the spot and they had an opportunity to peruse the document, Ex.P-1. Jaswant Singh had stated that the document was in the handwriting of the deceased himself. A suggestion was given to this witness that the document, Ex.P-1 was prepared by him. But, he emphatically denied. 11. Though the Investigation Officer did not send the document, Ex.P-1 to any handwriting expert, however, the testimony of the Investigation Officer Shri K.S. Chouhan is believable that such document was found in the box of deceased. If the document, Ex.P-1 is perused then, it appears that on blank portion of back of circular No.9 of the bible, the deceased wrote about his grievance and thereafter, he scored off each line of the document by plain lines and 3-4 lines were also drawn on the document to show that the document was cancelled. If the witness Jaswant Singh would have prepared the document then, there was no need for him to score off the entire document. If the witness Jaswant Singh would have prepared the document then, there was no need for him to score off the entire document. Such a document could have been possibly not kept in personal box of the deceased by anyone else and, therefore, by proof of its seizure from the box of the deceased, it is also established that the deceased had written about his problems from appellants and Adleena. And the deceased had himself kept the document in his box. On considering the text of the document, it would be apparent that the behaviour of the appellants with the deceased was not respectful and on and often, they had been quarrelling with the deceased Kamal Singh to get his property. Adleena (PW6) has stated that the appellants were the sons of the deceased. However, the witness Jaswant Singh (PW1) has stated in para 5 that the witness Adleena was second wife of the deceased Kamal Singh and Victor was the son of Adleena, from her previous husband. Hence, the appellant Victor was not the real son of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion and strained relations of the appellants with the deceased, it is proved beyond doubt that they had a motive to kill the deceased. 12. The third circumstance against the appellants is the fact of last seen together with the deceased. As discussed above, the witness Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh have proved the evidence of last seen that when the deceased alongwith his brother Jaswant Singh was taking his bullock cart to village Righuwatola, the appellants pulled him out from the bullock cart and assaulted him with fists and thereafter, Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh went away with bullock cart to village Righuwatola. Adleena, mother of the deceased who turned hostile has admitted about the quarrel and, therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that when the deceased was taking the bullock cart with his brothers to village Righuwatola, the appellants started quarrelling with him, assaulted him by fists and detained him in the village wherein on the next day morning the deceased was found killed. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants were in the company of the deceased Kamal Singh in the previous night soon before the incident when he was killed. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants were in the company of the deceased Kamal Singh in the previous night soon before the incident when he was killed. The factum of last seen is duly proved that the appellants were found with the deceased Kamal Singh before the incident. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the witnesses, the appellants were in the company of the deceased at about 9 p.m., whereas he was found dead at about 6 a.m. on the next day morning and, therefore, there was a long gap of time between the fact of last seen and when the crime was committed. It is further submitted that the crime was not committed in the house of the deceased, so that it could be said that the appellants were the only persons, who committed the crime. 14. In this connection, in the present case, it is not only established that the deceased was found with the appellants prior to the incident but, it is also established that when the deceased was going with his brother Jaswant Singh on a bullock cart, the appellants pulled him from the bullock cart and assaulted him. Dr. Meshram has stated in his post-mortem report, Ex.P-11 that death could be caused 12 to 24 hours prior to time of post-mortem. In document, Ex.P-11, it was mentioned that post-mortem took place on 8.6.2004, at about 3 p.m. and therefore, looking to the duration as computed by Dr.Meshram, possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased was killed soon after quarrel took place between the deceased and the appellants. Hence, there is no time gap between the fact of last seen and the incident of murder. It was for the appellants to establish that they left the deceased and he went to his house and, therefore, they had no knowledge about the incident. Adleena, mother of the appellants has stated that after few minutes of the quarrel, the appellants left the deceased and thereafter, deceased came and slept in his house, where Adleena was present. It was for the appellants to establish that they left the deceased and he went to his house and, therefore, they had no knowledge about the incident. Adleena, mother of the appellants has stated that after few minutes of the quarrel, the appellants left the deceased and thereafter, deceased came and slept in his house, where Adleena was present. However, Adleena is mother of the appellants, who would tell such a fact to save the appellants, whereas the witness Yashwant Singh (PW11) another son of the deceased has stated that he heard about the quarrel and he went to meet someone in another lane of the village to and about 11 p.m., he came in the house and slept. Yashwant Singh did not say that when he came to the house, he found the deceased there. If the deceased Kamal Singh had left after the quarrel then, certainly, he would have gone to village Righuwatola to help his brother Jaswant Singh because he had to go back with bullock cart for that purpose. The deceased could not visit the village Righuwatola after the first quarrel because he was already killed and hanged. 15. Under these circumstances, fact of last seen is not only proved against the appellants but, the fact is also proved that the deceased was not left by the appellants after that quarrel otherwise, he would have gone to village Righuwatola to help his brother. Also, it was not the case of robbery, so that suspicion could be caused against any stranger. The appellants were the sons of the deceased and, therefore, they should have known the person of that village, who had enmity with the deceased and it could be said by them that when the quarrel ended, someone else took the opportunity of that quarrel and killed the deceased. The appellants took a plea that the deceased had enmity with his brothers Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh and they would have killed the deceased. Such suggestion has no meaning because if the deceased had enmity with his brothers Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh then, he would not have visited the house of Jaswant Singh to help him for arrangement of a function of marriage. Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh went to Righuwatola by bullock cart during the quarrel and there is no evidence that they came back to the house of the deceased in the night. Jaswant Singh and Roman Singh went to Righuwatola by bullock cart during the quarrel and there is no evidence that they came back to the house of the deceased in the night. Hence, there is no possibility that the deceased could be killed by anyone else except the appellants. 16. If all of the circumstances are considered simultaneously then, chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. The appellants had a motive to kill the deceased, so that after his death, they could claim his property. Death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Soon before the incident of death, the appellants were found quarrelling with the deceased and thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive by anyone so that it can be said that the appellants had left him alive. If the deceased would have left alive would have visited back to village Righuwatola to help his brother Jaswant Singh but, the deceased did not go to the village Righuwatola. There was no enmity of the deceased with anyone else, so that he could be killed by someone else. It was not the case of robbery so that the deceased would have been killed by strangers. After considering these circumstances, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the appellants have killed the deceased Kamal Singh by throttling and his body was hanged from a tree, therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants of offence under section 302/34 of IPC. 17. It would be apparent that death of deceased was homicidal in nature and after his killing, he was hanged from a tree with help of a lungi to show that he committed suicide. Nobody except the culprit of murder would have any interest to disappear the evidence and therefore, it shall be presumed that the appellants after killing the deceased, hanged him from the tree with a lungi and, therefore, they are also culprits of offence under section 201 of IPC. Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants of offence under section 201 of IPC. 18. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence for offence under section 302 of IPC, whereas the sentence of offence under section 201 of IPC had already been executed upon the appellants. Hence, there is no need to make any interference in the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 19. 18. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence for offence under section 302 of IPC, whereas the sentence of offence under section 201 of IPC had already been executed upon the appellants. Hence, there is no need to make any interference in the order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the appellants cannot be accepted and consequently, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Conviction as well as sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants is hereby confirmed. .............