Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1060 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Chironji

2016-11-22

G.S.AHLUWALIA, N.K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER 1. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 4.1.2001 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 59/2000, the State has preferred the present appeal against the acquittal declared by the trial Court against the respondent No.1 Chironji for offence under section 302 IPC and against remaining respondents No.2, 3 and 4, namely, Umrav, Asharam and Kailash respectively, for offence under section 201 IPC. 2. Prosecution’s case, in short, is that on 21.6.1999 at about 9 p.m. a dispute took place between the deceased Barelal and respondent No.1 Chironji at village Sakatpur, Police Station Bairad, District Shivpuri and, therefore, respondent-Chironji pushed the deceased Barelal and assaulted him with the stick. Barelal turned unconscious. Accused Umrav and Kailash took him inside the house. Thereafrter, at about 12 to 1 a.m. in the night, the respondents No.2,3 and 4 along with respondent No.1 Chironji took the deceased on a cot and threw the deadbody of the deceased Barelal near the field of one Khemraj. On 22.6.1999 Barelal was found injured and dead by one Suresh (PW1), who intimated the police immediately and, therefore, the Investigating Officer went to the spot and recovered the dead body of deceased Barelal, which was sent for the post-mortem. Dr. A.K.Mourya (PW7) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Barelal and gave a report Ex.P-9. According to him, there were 3-4 minor injuries on the person of the deceased, out of them one injury which was on head could cause the death. Dr. A.K.Mourya was not sure about the cause of death and, therefore, viscera of the deceased was preserved. However, no poison was found in the FSL report Ex.P-10 in that viscera. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. 3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that no such incident took place. Respondent No.1 Chironji was falsely implicated due to family dispute. In defence, Kamlabai (DW1), wife of deceased Barelal was examined to show that Barelal, who went to graze his cattle, did not come back and thereafter his dead body was found in the field of Khemraj on the next day. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents from all the charges. 5. In defence, Kamlabai (DW1), wife of deceased Barelal was examined to show that Barelal, who went to graze his cattle, did not come back and thereafter his dead body was found in the field of Khemraj on the next day. 4. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents from all the charges. 5. During pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 Chironji died and appeal filed by State against respondent No.1 Chironji turned abated and, therefore, his name was deleted from the cause title. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. After death of deceased Chironji, where there was only charge of section 201 IPC against the remaining respondents, it would be appropriate to discuss the matter up to that extent. 8. Witnesses Badri (PW2), Suresh s/o Buddhulal (PW3), Babu (PW6), Champalal @ Chukhai (PW8) and Khairulal (PW9) were examined as eye-witnesses. However, all of them have stated that when Barelal was injured, they left the spot and they did not know about the dead body of the deceased Barelal. However, they have accepted that dead body of deceased Barelal was found near the field of Khemraj on the next day morning. Only Laxman (PW4) and Buddhu (PW5) were examined to show that respondents No.2, 3 and 4, namely, Umrav, Asharam and Kailash had helped the respondent No.1 Chironji in taking the dead body on a cot and thereafter the dead body was thrown near the field of Khemraj. However, the witness Laxman (PW4) has turned hostile. He did not support his case diary statement. 9. Buddhu (PW5) has stated that in the midnight he saw the respondents No.2,3 and 4 taking someone on a cot, however, he did not claim that he could identify the deceased Barelal and, therefore, it cannot be said beyond doubt that the respondents No.2,3 and 4 were taking the body of the deceased Barelal to throw it in the field. Secondly, the incident took place on 22.6.1999 and Buddhu (PW5) kept silence for approximately 4-5 months. On 21.11.1999, for the first time he had stated that he saw the respondents No.2,3 and 4 with respondent No.1 Chironji taking the person on a cot to the field. There is no reason shown by Buddhu (PW5) as to why he kept silence for a period of five months. On 21.11.1999, for the first time he had stated that he saw the respondents No.2,3 and 4 with respondent No.1 Chironji taking the person on a cot to the field. There is no reason shown by Buddhu (PW5) as to why he kept silence for a period of five months. Possibility cannot be ruled out that enemies of respondents No.2,3 and 4 would have cooked with the witness Buddhu (PW5)to give such statement to implicate the respondents that they destroyed the evidence to save respondent No.1-Chironji. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of witness Buddhu (PW5). 10. If testimony of witness Laxman (PW4) is discarded because he turned hostile and testimony of witness Buddhu (PW5) is discarded due to aforesaid reason then there is no evidence against the respondents No.2,3 and 4 that they disappeared the evidence against the respondent No.1-Chironji to save him and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents No.2,3 and 4 from the charge of section 201 IPC. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the appeal filed by the State. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 12. The respondents No.2, 3 and 4 are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and, therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 13. A copy of the order be sent to the Court below along with its record for information. J.M. Sahni, Panel Lawyer for appellant/State; Vinay Sharma and Shailendra Singh for respondents.