Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 726 (MP)

Rampati @ Patangi v. State of M. P.

2017-05-25

J.K.MAHESHWARI, J.P.GUPTA

body2017
ORDER Maheshwari, J. -- 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.7.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi in S.T. No. 3/2005 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation for committing the murder of Lallo Agariya, this appeal has been preferred under section 374(2) of the CrPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is, on 12.10.2004 Pannelal, brother of deceased went to forest area for cutting the woods while Ramvali and Chhotelal, elder brothers of deceased went to plough the field, and mother went for grazing of cattle. Father Samaylal (PW12) and sisters-in-law Sukhmaniya (PW5) and Subhagi (PW13) were at home after maternity period while deceased Lallu was lying on the wooden cot (Takhat) in the Courtyard. Accused Rampati @ Patangi entered in the house of deceased having Tangi in his hand, sat on the cot where the deceased was lying down and said why he is bothering his wife, on which some altercation took place and the accused assaulted 2-3 times from the back side of Tangi over the head and neck of the deceased. On seeing the incident, Sukhmania (PW5) and Subhagi (PW13) made hue and cry to save Lallu, who sustained injuries and blood was started oozing. At that time accused along with Tangi ran away from the spot. The information of the incident was given to Ramlakhan, Janpad Sadasya where Jagannath Singh was also sitting. While making arrangement of Vehicle for shifting the deceased to the Hospital, he died, to which the intimation was given by Ramlakhan to P.S. Bargawan. 3. The Police reached on the spot to complete all the formalities. After preparation of Panchnamas and completing other investigations, challan was filed in the competent Court, however, the Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and committed it to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court framed charge under section 302 of the IPC. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded for trial putting a defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. Learned trial Court relying upon the statements of Samaylal (PW12), Sukhmania (PW5) and Subhagi (PW13) and also the statements of Chhotelal (PW2), Rambali (PW3) and Pannelal (PW4) to cause injury, which finds support from the statement of Dr. The accused abjured his guilt and demanded for trial putting a defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. Learned trial Court relying upon the statements of Samaylal (PW12), Sukhmania (PW5) and Subhagi (PW13) and also the statements of Chhotelal (PW2), Rambali (PW3) and Pannelal (PW4) to cause injury, which finds support from the statement of Dr. K.P. Saket (PW8), Autopsy Surgeon, who performed post-mortem (Ex.P-11) and submitted his report (Ex.P-11A) specifying that injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, recorded the finding to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and defence of the accused was not found plausible. 5. Shri P.S. Gaharwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that it is a case wherein the deceased was bothering the wife of the accused, however, on making the complaint, altercation took place and in the heat of passion, the accused assaulted from the back side of Tangi over the head and neck of the deceased. Thus, looking to the evidence brought on record, it is a case wherein there was no pre-meditation and the accused was not having any intention to commit the murder of the deceased. The appellant is in custody since the date of the incident. During trial also he was in custody, therefore, converting the conviction of the appellant under section 304-II of the IPC, sentence already undergone by him would be sufficient to mitigate the circumstances. 6. Per contra Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer representing the State contends that it is not a case wherein the incident occurred all of a sudden and without pre-meditation. In fact, the accused entered into the house of deceased with pre-planning having deadly weapon in his hand to make complaint when there was no male member except the father of the deceased. On making complaint by the accused, altercation took place and the accused assaulted with force over the head of the deceased, as a result of which his parietal bone was crushed, which reveal from the post-mortem report itself, therefore, it is not a case of sudden provocation. In fact the accused with intent to commit murder entered into the house of deceased and assaulted by means of deadly weapon, as a result of which he died. In fact the accused with intent to commit murder entered into the house of deceased and assaulted by means of deadly weapon, as a result of which he died. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302 of the IPC, which may not be converted under section 304-II of the IPC and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the statements of Sukhmaniya (PW5), Subhagi (PW13) and Samay Lal (PW12), it is apparent that the accused entered into the house of the deceased when there was no other male member in the house except old aged father and made some complaint to the deceased, who was lying on the wooden cot, on which altercation took place between them and the accused assaulted from the back side of a Tangi over the head of deceased. The injuries received on the head indicate the intention of the accused of causing death by assault made using deadly weapon. The said fact find support from the testimony of Dr. K.P. Saket (PW8), Autopsy Surgeon. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the trial Court proving the charge under section 302 of the IPC to commit murder of Lallu is in accordance with law. It is to note here that the deceased was at his home and except the old aged father and two sisters-in-laws, no other male members were present. The accused visited to the house of deceased armed with deadly weapon and made assault over head with force, the nature of injuries caused by said weapon reveals from the post-mortem report, which indicates his intention to commit murder. However, it cannot be inferred that the accused was not having any intention to commit murder of the deceased. It is not a case wherein all of a sudden the accused assaulted to deceased without any premeditation. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court convicting the appellant under section 302 of the IPC is based on due appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference in this appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.