Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1045 (MP)

Ranjhari alias Paramlal Patel v. State of M. P.

2018-12-20

B.K.SHRIVASTAVA, P.K.JAISWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/accused Ranjhari alias Paramlal Patel against the judgment dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 47/2009, whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for offences punishable under section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of deceased Sarman Patel and under section 324 of the IPC for causing injuries to Chhakki Patel (PW2) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 302 of the IPC, with default stipulation and R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- under section 324 of the IPC, with default stipulation. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. As per prosecution story, on 25.11.2008 at about 4 p.m. when injured Chhakki Patel (PW2), Sarman Patel (deceased), Bhagwan Das (PW5) and others were playing Chopad, the appellant came there and started abusing Sarman Patel and also exhorted to kill him. Thereafter, the appellant caused injuries by an axe on his neck and head, due to which Sarman Patel fell down and died on spot. Complainant Chhakki Patel (PW2) intervened and tried to save him then the appellant also inflicted axe blows on him, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of complaint lodged by Chhakki Patel (PW2) at Police Station Bameetha, District Chhatarpur, a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-2) and Marg Intimation (Ex.P-19) were registered vide Crime No.237/2008 and Marg No. 59/2008. During investigation, spot map (Ex.P-3) was prepared. Blood stained shirt of the injured, plain and blood mixed soil and shoes of the deceased were seized vide seizure memos Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-9. In presence of the witnesses, inquest was prepared and the dead-body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Injured Chhakki Patel was sent to the Government Hospital. Dr. Vineet Sharma (PW7) conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body of Sarman Patel on 26.11.2008. According the post-mortem report Ex.P-15, the cause of death of the deceased was shock because of excessive haemorrhage and the injury on his spinal cord. The appellant was arrested on 28.11.2008 and on the basis of his memorandum (Ex.P-7) recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, an axe, which was stained with blood, was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-8. 3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The appellant was arrested on 28.11.2008 and on the basis of his memorandum (Ex.P-7) recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, an axe, which was stained with blood, was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-8. 3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. The leaned trial Court framed charges under section 302 and 307 of the IPC against the appellant/accused, who abjured the guilt and therefore, the trial Court proceeded for trial. 4. The trial Court examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses including injured and three eye witnesses and documentary evidence was led by the prosecution in support of its version while Ramesh Badhai has been examined as D.W.1 before the trial Court in support of defence version. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record vide impugned judgment has held that it is proved that the appellant/accused committed murder of Sarman Patel and therefore, he has been convicted under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Further, learned trial Court has held that complainant Chhakki Patel (PW2) did not sustain any injury which was dangerous to life and therefore, no offence under section 307 of the IPC was made out and the injury was simple in nature and therefore, the appellant/accused was convicted under section 324 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statement of Batibai (PW3), wife of the deceased and submitted that she was not present at the relevant point of time and further eye witness Ghanshyam (PW1) did not support the prosecution case. He has been declared hostile. The trial Court has relied upon the sole testimony of Chhakki Patel (PW2). He is an interested witness and according to the defence version, he had illicit relation with the wife of the deceased and therefore the sole testimony of Chhakki Patel (PW2) is doubtful and conviction based on his deposition is bad in law. She further submitted that the case of the prosecution has not been duly corroborated by the medical evidence. He is an interested witness and according to the defence version, he had illicit relation with the wife of the deceased and therefore the sole testimony of Chhakki Patel (PW2) is doubtful and conviction based on his deposition is bad in law. She further submitted that the case of the prosecution has not been duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The used weapon i.e. axe is usually found in villagers’ houses and as per FSL report, blood group was not found to be of the same person as that of the deceased and therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant and prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant/accused be acquitted from the aforesaid offences. 7. Per contra, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer has drawn our attention to the statement of the injured witness PW2 Chhakki Patel and submitted that he was present at the time of the occurrence and had witnessed the incident. The statement of the ocular witness is medically corroborated and therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. As per the statement of PW2 Chhakki Patel, the injured witness, when he along with others were playing Chopad, at that relevant point of time, the accused armed with an axe came there and after exhortation, inflicted axe injuries to the deceased and when he tried to save him, the accused also caused injuries to him. PW2 Chhakki Patel was cross-examined but his evidence has practically remained unchanged. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P-15), the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased : (1) Chop wound, size 5 x 6 cm above and behind right ear, piece of corresponding skull region (which is chopped out) along with skin and hair is present, which is sealed, packed and handed over to concerned constable. (2) Incised wound, size 13 x 8 x 5 cm, present at postero-lateral aspect of upper left neck at the junction of head and neck, oblique in direction, all the structures, skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, arteries, veins, spinal cord are cut, vertebra (cervical) – is exposed. Wound is spindle in shape. Both wounds are ante-mortem in nature and wound No.02 is sufficient to produce death 10. Wound is spindle in shape. Both wounds are ante-mortem in nature and wound No.02 is sufficient to produce death 10. The cause of death of the deceased was shock because of excessive haemorrhage and the injury on his spinal cord. As per opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the injury sustained by the deceased is homicidal in nature. The autopsy surgeon PW7 Dr. Vineet Sharma very categorically stated in Para 3 of his statement that injury No.2 was sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The injuries sustained by the deceased were of the axe, which was recovered. PW10 Dr. D.S.Kindra in his statement has deposed that PW2 Chhakki Patel, the injured, was examined by him and as per his MLC report, the injuries of the injured are simple in nature. The injuries sustained by Chhakki Patel (PW2) as per MLC report Ex.P-23 are as under : (1) Incised wound, size 4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on the left side of right shoulder by hard and sharp object, simple injury. (2) Abrasion, size 7 cm x 1 cm on the middle of right scapula- by hard and blunt object, simple injury. 11. From the aforesaid, it is evident that the deceased Sarman had sustained two injuries. PW2 Chakki Patel, the injured, was consistent in his evidence that it was accused/appellant Ranjhari alias Paramlal Patel who inflicted axe blows on deceased Sarman Patel, which were grievous in nature and deceased Sarman Patel ultimately succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The doctor has opined that the death of Sarman Patel was as a result of both injuries sustained by him on his spinal cord and excessive haemorrhage. The evidence of the doctor and the post mortem report Ex.P-15 corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses regarding the incident. From the aforementioned, it is amply clear that no accused other than appellant Ranjhari alias Paramlal Patel was actually involved in causing axe injuries to the deceased. 12. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is clear that it was only the appellant/accused Ranjhari alias Paramlal Patel who had assaulted Sarman Patel with the help of the axe, which resulted in grievous injuries to the deceased and the impact of such injuries was that the deceased ultimately succumbed to the injuries on the spot. 13. 13. The incident had taken place when the deceased was playing Chopad along with injured and other persons. There was premeditation on the part of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. Though the defence of the appellant was that injured Chhakki Patel (PW2) was having illicit relation with the wife of deceased Sarman Patel but that does not give licence to him to commit murder of deceased. We find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgement and order of conviction of the appellant under sections 302 and 324 of IPC. 14. For these reasons, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under section 302 and 324 of the IPC and imposed sentences as mentioned above. In absence of any material evidence, no case is made out to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.