Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 812 (MP)

Prabhulal v. State of M. P.

2017-07-07

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VED PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Shrivastava, J. -- 1. This appeal under section 374 of the CrPC is directed against the judgment dated 13.8.2004 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.224/2003 convicting the appellants for offence under section 302/34 of the IPC and awarding sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- each and default imprisonment of six months. 2. The appellants have been charged for causing murder of Ghanshyam. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 12.6.2003 at 10.30 a.m., PW6 Mukesh s/o Badrilal had gone to Jalla Colony to call his uncle Ghanshyam and there he had seen that appellant No.1 Prabhulal and appellant No.2 Ganesh were having sword and they were fighting with Ghanshyam. Appellant Ganesh said that Ghanshyam had beaten him earlier, for which the Court case was going on therefore, he would finish Ghanshyam. Thereafter appellant Ganesh caused injury on the palm of right hand of Ghanshyam. Prabhulal caused injury with sword on the chest of Ghanshyam, then Prabhulal gave 3-4 blows of sword on the neck of Ghanshyam, as a result of which the neck was cut and head of Ghanshyam started hanging. Ghanshyam fell down and died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by PW4 Sikandar, PW2 Ramprasad and PW9 Billu and other persons on the spot. The report of the incident was made by PW6 Mukesh s/o Badrilal at 10.50 a.m. in police station Khajrana which was half kilometer away from the spot of incident, soon after the incident, on the basis of which offence was registered against the appellants and investigation had started. Merg No.23/2003 was separately registered. Spot inspection was done and spot map was prepared and by issuing Safina Form in the presence of the witnesses, Panchnama of the dead body was prepared and blood stained soil was seized and the dead body of Ghanshyam was sent for post-mortem to M.Y. Hospital, Indore. The post-mortem was done by PW12 Dr. Ravindra Choudhary and the postmortem report Ex.P/18-A was prepared. The appellants were arrested on the date of the incident itself and from the appellants blood stained clothes were seized. The blood found on the hand of appellant Prabhulal was taken separately in a cotton piece and seized. The post-mortem was done by PW12 Dr. Ravindra Choudhary and the postmortem report Ex.P/18-A was prepared. The appellants were arrested on the date of the incident itself and from the appellants blood stained clothes were seized. The blood found on the hand of appellant Prabhulal was taken separately in a cotton piece and seized. On the basis of the memorandum of the appellants, two blood stained swords were seized and after the post-mortem the blood stained clothes of deceased Ghanshyam were seized and the seized items were sent to the FSL, Rau, Indore. After completing the investigation, Challan was filed. 4. The appellants had abjured the guilt and trial took place. The incriminating circumstances were pointed out to the appellants which were denied by them in the statement under section 313 of the CrPC and a defence was taken that they were falsely implicated in the matter. 5. The appellants have challenged the judgment of the trial Court mainly on the ground that from the eye witnesses account and other material on record, the alleged offence against the appellants is not proved and they have wrongly been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment and has raised the plea that the conviction of the appellants is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. 7. The trial Court has found that the death of Ghanshyam was homicidal in nature. PW12 Dr. Ravindra Choudhary who had done the post-mortem and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.P/18-A had found following injuries on the body of the deceased :- i. Stiffness and lividity was present in the dead body. ii. The neck of the deceased was cut and was hanging with some muscles on the right side. iii. Wind pipe and other structures and bone of neck and blood vessels were slit. iv. There were 3 cut wounds outside the neck which were 4.5 × 05 × 2 c.m. deep going towards back of the neck. v. One another cut wound in slanting position was present at chest which was 7 × 1 × 0.9 c.m. in size. vi. There were three cut wounds outside the neck which were 4.5 × 0.5 × 2 c.m. deep and were located behind the neck. vii. Another cut wound was present on the chest having 7 × 1 × 0.8 c.m. of size. vi. There were three cut wounds outside the neck which were 4.5 × 0.5 × 2 c.m. deep and were located behind the neck. vii. Another cut wound was present on the chest having 7 × 1 × 0.8 c.m. of size. There was a cut would on left and right parietal region of the head iaving 4.5 × 0.5 × 2 cm. of size which was going to head through chest. viii. Second cut wound was present on the shoulder which was 5 × 0.5 × 1.3 c.m in size. There was a cut wound on the right hand it was cutting the thumb having 3 × 0.5 c.m. deep bone. In the injury many blood clots were stored. Internal examination – Apart from above described injuries; in internal examination other organs of body were found bloodless. 20 grams of pulse-rice found in stomach. The above described injuries were inflicted before death by hard, heavy sharp weapon. 8. As per the opinion of the doctor, the death took place on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries on the neck and other vital parts of the body and the death was homicidal in nature. He further opined that brutal injuries on the vital parts were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Hence, from the medical evidence it is clear that the death was homicidal in nature. 9. To establish the guilt of the appellants, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and in defence the appellants had examined DW1 P.C. Jain. 10. PW6 Mukesh s/o Kishanlal is not only a relevant eyewitness but is also author of the FIR (Ex.P-19) which was registered soon after the incident. He is also the witness of spot map and Lash Panchnama. He has clearly deposed that in his presence appellants Prabhulal and Ganesh had caused injuries to Ghanshyam by means of sword on account of the previous enmity on the ground that Ghanshyam had beaten them earlier. This witness has given a detailed account of different sword injuries caused by both the appellants. According to him, at first Ganesh had caused injury on the right hand of Ghanshyam with sword, thereafter Prabhulal had caused injury on the chest and neck of Ghanshyam using sword, as a result of which his neck was cut and he had died on the spot. According to him, at first Ganesh had caused injury on the right hand of Ghanshyam with sword, thereafter Prabhulal had caused injury on the chest and neck of Ghanshyam using sword, as a result of which his neck was cut and he had died on the spot. He has disclosed the presence of PW8 Ganpat, PW9 Billu as also PW2 Ramprasad and PW7 another Mukesh on the spot at the time of incident. 11. PW8 Ganpat has also stated that he had seen the appellants causing injuries to Ghanshyam by sword. According to him, Ghanshyam had received injuries on neck, stomach etc. and he was completely cut. Though his statement under section 161 of CrPC was recorded after some delay but for the detailed reason noted by the trial Court in Para-11 of the judgment his testimony cannot be doubted. 12. PW9 Billu though was declared hostile but in his examination-in-chief he has clearly testified that he had seen the appellants causing injuries to Ghanshyam using sword and thereafter, appellants had fled away from the spot leaving Ghanshyam dead. He has also stated that the neck of Ghanshyam was cut and he had received injuries on the chest. He has also stated that at the instance of appellants the swords were recovered and their blood stained clothes were seized. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of PW8 Ganpat and PW9 Billu but those minor discrepancies are not sufficient to disbelieve their statement. The testimony of PW6 Mukesh is fully supported by the testimony of these two witnesses. 13. So far as PW7 Mukesh s/o Kishanlal is concerned, this witness has been disbelieved by the trial Court for the reasons recorded in para-9 of the judgment. Similarly PW4 Sikandar is not an eyewitness of the incident since he had reached to the spot after the incident. PW12 Dr. Ravindra Choudhary has stated that the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon and the injuries were ante-mortem. 14. The eyewitnesses’ account is fully corroborated with the medical evidence as also seizure of sword vide Ex.P-4 and P-5 on the memo of the appellants from the spot disclosed by them, vide seizure memo Ex.P-9 and P-10. The report of the FSL (Ex.P-23) reveals that the clothes of the appellants as also the deceased as well as the cotton and the seized swords were having stains of human blood. 15. The report of the FSL (Ex.P-23) reveals that the clothes of the appellants as also the deceased as well as the cotton and the seized swords were having stains of human blood. 15. From the aforesaid material it is clearly established that the appellants had caused murder of Ghanshyam by means of sword. The offence under section 302/34 IPC committed by the appellants is proved beyond doubt, hence no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellants for the said offence. Hence, conviction is affirmed. 16. So far as the sentence part is concerned, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence appellants have rightly been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine with default sentence. 17. Hence, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court does not require any interference. The conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 IPC and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is affirmed and appeal is dismissed.