Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 716 (MP)

Sonu @ Surendra v. State of M. P.

2017-05-24

J.K.MAHESHWARI, J.P.GUPTA

body2017
ORDER Maheshwari, J. -- 1. Both these appeals have been preferred under section 374(2) of the CrPC arising out of the judgment dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.73/2003 by which the appellants have been convicted for the charge under section 302 of the IPC for commission of the murder of Harsewak, and directed to undergo the life imprisonment with fine and also with default stipulations. 2. The prosecutions story, in brief, is that on 10.1.2003 at about 9 p.m. when Khemchand Patel (PW3) was coming from Yagya Mela and reached near shop of Moti Patel, Pagara Road, Subhash Nagar, Sagar he heard the cries. On reaching to the spot he saw Sonu @ Surendra and Dassoo @ Dashrath Sahu were assaulting deceased Harsevak, by means of knive, who was crying to save him. Complainant Khemchand Patel (PW3) reached on the spot, at that time Parasram (PW4), Chhotu Thakur (PW5), Dashrath (PW6) and Uddhav Painter (PW10) have also reached there. Looking to all these persons, accused persons ran away from the spot bearing knife in their hand. The FIR was lodged at police station Moti Nagar by Khemchand Patel (PW3). The police conducted the investigation wherein Dr. Subhash Jain (PW2) conducted autopsy, who gave its report Ex.P-7A, and opined that cause of death is due to multiple incised injuries over the persons of the deceased. 3. After completion of the investigation challan was filed before the competent Judicial Magistrate, who committed it to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court framed charge under section 302 of the IPC against both the appellants/accused persons, who abjured their guilt and demanded the trial putting their defence of false implication because Khemchand (PW3) solemnized the marriage with the sister of the deceased Harsevak and Sonu @ Surendra (appellant) was the friend of the deceased who told to the complainant why he solemnized marriage with the sister of the deceased. Thus on death of Harsevak he has been falsely implicated by Khemchand. 4. Learned trial Court relied upon the testimony of Khemchand (PW3) and the eye witnesses Parasram (PW4), Chhotu Thakur (PW5). Their testimony find support from the statement of autopsy surgeon Dr. Subhash Jain (PW2), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-7A. Thus on death of Harsevak he has been falsely implicated by Khemchand. 4. Learned trial Court relied upon the testimony of Khemchand (PW3) and the eye witnesses Parasram (PW4), Chhotu Thakur (PW5). Their testimony find support from the statement of autopsy surgeon Dr. Subhash Jain (PW2), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-7A. The Court also relied upon the FSL report Ex.P-19 and material brought on record, and convicted the appellants under section 302 of the IPC for commission of murder of the deceased Harsevak and directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine. 5. Learned counsel representing the appellants contended that it is a case wherein the motive to commit murder do not reflect from the prosecution narration or from the testimony of the witnesses. It is urged that the appellants have been falsely implicated by the complainant Khemchand (PW3) because on solemnization of marriage by him from the sister of the deceased to which accused Sonu @ Surendra have conveyed its displeasure in support to the deceased. However complainant Khemchand (PW3), who is said to be eye witness though was not present on the spot have falsely implicated both the appellants/accused in commission of the murder of the deceased Harsevak. The trial Court has not duly appreciated the said aspect while recording finding of conviction and sentence to the appellants, however prayer is made to allow these appeals and acquit the appellants from the charge of section 302 of the IPC. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer Shri Yadav contended that it is a case wherein present two appellants/accused persons caused injuries by means of knife over the person of the deceased, which reflectes from the post-mortem report Ex.P-7A. On the body of the deceased as many as 22 incised wounds were found and cause of death is due to the said injuries. It is a case wherein not only the complainant Khemchand (PW3) is the eye witness but Parasram (PW4), Chhotu Thakur (PW5) have also seen the incident who supported the prosecution story and defence as put by the accused persons have not been established by them. In absence thereto, the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court is in accordance with law which do not warrant any interference in these appeals. 7. In absence thereto, the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court is in accordance with law which do not warrant any interference in these appeals. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the evidence of the case, it reveales that the incident has taken place on 10.1.2003 at about 9 p.m. and various persons were reached on the spot and seen the incident, including assault made by both the accused persons by means of knife to deceased. The said incident has been seen by the eye witnesses, Khemchand (PW3), Parasram (PW4) and Chhotu Thakur (PW5). Though Dashrath (PW6), Uddhav Painter (PW10) and Mohan Singh (PW11) have not supported the prosecution story. After going through testimony of eye witnesses Khemchand (PW3), Parasram (PW4) and Chhotu Thakur (PW5) and their cross examination, their version remained innocular either on the point of place of seeing or making assault over the person of the deceased by means of knive, which finds support from the statement of autopsy surgeon Dr. Subhash Jain (PW2). In addition to the aforesaid, the seizure of the knive made from both the appellants/accused persons, which were sent for FSL examination and human blood was found on the Articles B, C, C-2, C-5 and E. However considering the aforesaid, in our opinion the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference in these appeals. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and looking to the evidence brought on the record and finding as recorded by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion such finding proving charge under section 302 of the IPC against appellants is based on due appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals filed by the appellants are devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.