Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1030 (MP)

Kishan Banjara v. State of M. P.

2017-09-23

ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, SANJAY YADAV

body2017
ORDER : SANJAY YADAV, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction under section 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment recorded by the trial Court against the appellant. Appellant is found guilty of the offence of causing murder of Adiram on 7.12.2005 at 9:00 AM. 2. Facts leading to conviction are that, on report being lodged by Rajesh (PW.5) as to the commission of an offence by the appellant causing repeated blows to Adi ram on 7.12.2005 at 9:00 AM and on trying to pacify being chased by the accused and the injuries has left Adiram in Pool of blood causing death, the FIR (Ex. P/12) was registered at Police Station Gohad. The investigation was set in motion. Spot map and inquest was prepared (Ex. P/2, P/3 and P/4). Blood stained and simple soil was collected (Ex. P/6), pieces of wood was collected (Ex. P/5). The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW.3) who submitted his report on 7.12.2005 (Ex. P/7). That following injuries were found on the body of the deceased. "(I) Incised wound two in number margins 3" x 1/2 x bone deep up to tip of nose from eye brow right side at the margin with second Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep at right side eye brow; (II) Right ear lacerated and disfigured and was multiple swell lacerated blood is filled in canal, tragers is secede; (III) Contusion below right ear up to neck; (IV) Right cheek (whole) is contused; (V) Lacerated wound right side occipital 2 1/2" x 3/4 x bone deep; (VI) Lacerated wound right parietal region 4" x 1" x bone deep; (VII) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep frontal region right side. (VIII) Upper lip is lacerated. (IX) Chin and lower lip is lacerated. (X) Contusion at right side abdomen subtotal region with abrasion size 8" x 2" present." 3. That as per doctor's opinion the cause of death was due injury to brain and during coma. The death as per doctor was homicidal in nature. 4. The appellant was arrested on 8.12.2005 (Ex. P/8) and at his instance the stick (danda) said to be used for commission of offence was recovered vide Ex. P/10. The said stick had an iron ring at the edge. The articles including the stick was sent for Chemical/Forensic analysis. The death as per doctor was homicidal in nature. 4. The appellant was arrested on 8.12.2005 (Ex. P/8) and at his instance the stick (danda) said to be used for commission of offence was recovered vide Ex. P/10. The said stick had an iron ring at the edge. The articles including the stick was sent for Chemical/Forensic analysis. The analysis report was furnished and exhibited as Ex. P/16 and Ex. P/17. The report was prepared by K.C. Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (PW.10). 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed for trial, wherein the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded that he is falsely implicated. 6. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses, out of these Dwarika Prasad (PW.1), Gopiram (PW.2), Ramswaroop (PW.4), Rajesh (PW.5) and Bhagwan Das (PW.6) as eye-witnesses and Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW.3) who conducted the postmortem and K.C. Sharma (PW.10) who prepared the forensic report (Ex. P.16 and Ex. P17). 7. The trial Court discarding the defence that all the eye witnesses are the relatives of the deceased found their evidence credible corroborating with the medical evidence and forensic analysis and held that prosecution succeeded in establish the charge of murder of Adiram against the appellant. Thus, finding led to his conviction. 8. Evidently, the incident has occurred in the broad day light in agricultural filed. There is no iota of material evidence to espouse the doubt of Dwarika Prasad (PW.1), Gopiram (PW.2), Ramswaroop (PW.4), Rajesh (PW.5) and Bhagwan Das (PW.6) not present in the agricultural field. Learned amicus has failed to advert to any cogent material as would doubt their presence in the field. These witnesses having witnessed the incident which they deposed the same in their evidence. Rajesh (PW.5), who lodged the complaint, in his evidence categorically narrated the entire event as to how the deceased was assaulted by the accused with a stick (Danda) resulting in injuries to head. Similar evidence is given by other witnesses who explicitly deposed as to the brutal manner in which the injuries were caused. 9. In Arjun and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247 it is held: "11. Shivprasad (PW-6) is the brother of the deceased, his relationship with the deceased does not affect the credibility of the witness. Only because PW-6 is related to the deceased that may not by itself be a ground to discard his evidence. 9. In Arjun and another v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247 it is held: "11. Shivprasad (PW-6) is the brother of the deceased, his relationship with the deceased does not affect the credibility of the witness. Only because PW-6 is related to the deceased that may not by itself be a ground to discard his evidence. Where the prosecution case rests upon the evidence of a related witness, it is well-settled that the court shall scrutinize the evidence with care as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law. The fact of the witness being related to the victim or deceased does not by itself discredit the evidence. 12. In Mano Dutt and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 79 , this Court held as under :- "33. The court can convict an accused on the statement of a sole witness, even if he was a relative of the deceased and thus, an interested party. The condition precedent to such an order is that the statement of such witness should satisfy the legal parameters stated by this Court in a catena of judgments. Once those parameters are satisfied and the statement of the witness is trustworthy, cogent and corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution oral or documentary, then the court would not fall in error of law in relying upon the statement of such witness. It is only when the courts find that the single eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure its defect. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court, in Anil Phukan v. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282 . We find no reason to discard the evidence of PW-6 for the sole reason that he is related to the deceased and that he is an interested witness." 10. In view whereof and in absence of cogent material to doubt the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of crime the evidence of close relative cannot be discarded when the same stood corroborated with the medical evidence and the evidence of the Scientific Officer who gave the forensic report of the "danda" used for commission of the offence. In view whereof and in absence of cogent material to doubt the presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of crime the evidence of close relative cannot be discarded when the same stood corroborated with the medical evidence and the evidence of the Scientific Officer who gave the forensic report of the "danda" used for commission of the offence. This evidence led to establishing the fact that the pieces of wood found at the spot were part of the "danda" recovered at the instance of the accused. Merely because the blood group could not be determined will not belie the eye-witnesses' count and the medical evidence and the forensic report corroborating with the ocular evidence. 11. In view whereof since the prosecution succeeded in establishing the charge of murder, no indulgence is caused with the judgment recording conviction and the sentence. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed.