Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1128 (MP)

Raju @ Rajendra v. State of M. P.

2017-11-03

H.P.SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.9.2009, passed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.523/2008, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the Code”) and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, R.I. for 3 months. 2. In nutshell, the case of prosecution is that on 2.6.2008, at about 4:45 p.m., unknown person caused injury on the head of the deceased by throwing stone. Thereafter, in injured condition, deceased was brought to the Sharda Hospital, Bhopal for treatment. Incident was informed by Dr. Mahesh Shukla to the Police. Thereafter, Police of P. S. Kamlanagar, District Bhopal came there and registered dehati nalisi and on that basis, Crime No.271/2008 has been registered in P. S. Kamlanagar, District Bhopal. 3. During treatment, deceased died. Inquest memo was prepared. Autopsy was done by Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW11) on 13.6.2008 and it was found that cause of death was shock and loss of blood due to injury caused on the head of the deceased. After completing investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Magistrate against the appellant. Case was committed to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The case was made over to the trial Court. The learned trial Court framed charge under section 302 of the Code. Contents of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. On completion of recording of evidence, the learned trial Court examined the accused under section 313 of the CrPC to which, he denied veracity of all the prosecution witnesses. His case was of total denial and that he is falsely implicated in this case. 5. The learned trial Court upon hearing the parties, on going through the evidence of the witnesses and exhibited documents and material available before it, convicted the appellant and sentenced him by the judgment and order stated above. Eye witness Yusuf (PW9), Arjun Singh (PW8) and Shyamlal (PW5) have stated that they had seen the appellant beating the deceased by brick. Appellant had caused injury on the head and body of the deceased. Eye witness Yusuf (PW9), Arjun Singh (PW8) and Shyamlal (PW5) have stated that they had seen the appellant beating the deceased by brick. Appellant had caused injury on the head and body of the deceased. Yusuf (PW9) has stated that he had informed about the incident to the father of deceased Asarlal (PW3) and thereafter, he and his wife came on the spot. Asarlal (PW3) and his wife Dashodabai (PW4) have stated that on receiving information from Yusuf, they rushed to the spot and saw that the appellant was beating their daughter by brick. He had caused injury on the head of the deceased. All these witnesses have stated that they caught hold of the appellant and tied him by rope and informed the Police. 6. Asarlal (PW3) has stated that he immediately took the deceased to the Hospital and informed the Police. She was admitted in the Hospital and during treatment, she died. Dashodabai (PW4) has also supported the statement of Asarlal (PW3). 7. A.S.I., M.L. Yadav (PW10) has stated that before witnesses, he had prepared inquest memo and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem. Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW11) has stated that she had conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased and found total 7 injuries. As per her report, Ex-P-16, death of the deceased was caused due to shock and excessive loss of blood due to injury caused on her person and accordingly, on the basis of statement of the eye witness and oral evidence of other witnesses and as per documentary evidence, it is proved that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that death has been caused by the appellant. 8. So far as case of committing murder is concerned, looking to the mental status of the appellant and looking to the fact that appellant was not known to the deceased or her parents, he unintentionally caused injuries on the person of the deceased and accordingly, learned trial Court concluded that it is not a case of murder, but culpable homicide not amounting to murder and on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record, in my considered view, learned trial Court has rightly concluded that it is a case of culpable homicide and not murder and rightly convicted the appellant under section 304-II of the Code in place of 302 of the Code. 9. 9. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence punishable under section 304-II of the Code. 10. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference in the present appeal. 11. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.