Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1052 (MP)

Ruplal v. State of M. P.

2018-12-21

B.K.SHRIVASTAVA, P.K.JAISWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT Shrivastava, J.--1. This criminal appeal has been filed on 15.6.2009 under section 374 of CrPC by the appellant Ruplal against the judgment dated 30.3.2009 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul in Sessions Trial No.193/2007. By the impugned judgment the learned trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of depositing of fine amount, six months additional rigorous imprisonment also awarded. 2. As per prosecution case, it is an admitted position that Lakmi Bai is the wife of accused/appellant Ruplal and the deceased Tenu was the father-in-law of the appellant. Tenu was residing with the accused and his family in a house situated at agricultural field of accused. 3. At about 8 to 10 days prior to the date of incident i.e. 18.6.2007 there was no taking term between Lakmi Bai and Ruplal. The accused also quarreled with Lakmi Bai on 18.6.2007. Thereafter he took torch from Tenu and went away from the house. In the night Tenu was sleeping with his grand son Nilesh infront of the house. Accused reached there with axe in the night. At about 11:30 p.m. He attacked upon Tenu by axe. Nilesh also wake up, and seen that the accused assaulted by the help of axe upon Tenu. Thereafter accused also tried to hurt Lakshmi Bai by axe but Nilesh saved her and the accused fled away from the spot. Nilesh informed about the incident to Bhola and Gopal, who are the son of the deceased. They both came and found that Tenu expired. Bilasiya Bai, Goverdhan and Gangaram also reached. Thereafter Bhola informed the police on telephone and Police Multai registered Rojnamcha report (Ex.P-14) 4. P.R. Sirohi, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW14) reached on the spot and note down Dehati Merg intimation (Ex.P-14) and zero numbered FIR (Ex.P-9). He also issued the notice (Ex.P-3) and in the presence of the witnesses he prepared inquest panchanama (Ex.P-4). He also prepared spot map (Ex.P-5) and sent dead body for postmortem. He also seized the cloths etc (Ex.P-6) from the spot. Upon the basis of Dehati Merg and FIR the aforesaid Sub Inspector registered the original Merg (Ex.P-23) and FIR (Ex.P-22) and registered the Crime under section 302 of IPC. The police recorded the statements of several witnesses. He also prepared spot map (Ex.P-5) and sent dead body for postmortem. He also seized the cloths etc (Ex.P-6) from the spot. Upon the basis of Dehati Merg and FIR the aforesaid Sub Inspector registered the original Merg (Ex.P-23) and FIR (Ex.P-22) and registered the Crime under section 302 of IPC. The police recorded the statements of several witnesses. In the postmortem report the death was reported as homicidal. Accused arrested by Ex.P-18 and police also recovered Axe and cloths of the accused. The seized articles were sent to FSL by Ex.P-20, from their report Ex.P-21 was received. 5. After investigation the police came to the conclusion that the accused committed murder of his father-in-law Tenu. Thereafter, police filed the challan before JMFC Multai, District Betul on 13.8.2007. Magistrate registered the Crime No. 2019/2007 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Court on 24.8.2007. 6. In the Sessions Court the Sessions Trial No. 193/2007 was registered on 7.9.2007 and the trial Court framed the charge under section 302 of IPC on 12.11.2007. The accused denied from the charge and demand for trial. Thereafter prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The accused did not produce any witness in his defence. 7. After conclusion of the trial the Court below passed the judgment on 30.3.2009 and found the appellant guilty under section 302 of IPC. Therefore convicted the accused for the said offence and passed the sentence as stated in para-1 of this judgment. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court committed mistake by convicting the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC. Nilesh (PW4) is the child witness and other witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. The trial Court did not scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses. The evidence produced is contradictory to the evidence of doctor. Various omissions and contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper way. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set-aside. Hence, it is prayed, that the conviction and sentence be set-aside and the appellant be acquitted. 9. On the other side, State strongly opposed the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that Nilesh is the eye witness in this case, who is son of the appellant. Hence, it is prayed, that the conviction and sentence be set-aside and the appellant be acquitted. 9. On the other side, State strongly opposed the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that Nilesh is the eye witness in this case, who is son of the appellant. There is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of aforesaid witness. In addition to that, prosecution case is also supported by evidence of Laxmi Bai (PW6), Bhola Nagle (PW3), Gopal (PW7), Bilsiya Bai (PW5), Chironji (PW2) and Gowardhan (PW8). The blood stained Axe was also seized and the blood group of the deceased was matched with the group of blood, which found upon Axe. Therefore, trial Court did not commit any mistake by convicting the appellant. Hence, this appeal having no force and liable to be dismissed. 10. Dr. R.K. Nachankar is the Medical Officer posted at CHC Multai, who conducted postmortem of deceased Tenu, S/o Jeevanlal, aged about 55 years. On 19.6.2007 he said in his statement that upon examination he found following injuries upon the dead body of the deceased. i. One incised wound 5 X 1.5 X 2.5 cms, oblique in position on right side of face (on zygomatic bone region) bones were fractured below the injury and blood veins were also seen. ii. One apparent incised wound 6 X 4 X 3 cm, just middle to injury No.1, oblique in shape spreading on nose. iii. One lacerated wound upon right eye ball 6.0 X 4 cms, right eye ball is enueleated (nkfguh vk¡[k viuh txg ls fudyh Fkh). Bones below wound (frontal bone orbital and zygomatic) were fractured. Part of brain was visible from the hole of eye. 11. Doctor informed that all injuries were ante-mortem and caused during the period of 12 to 14 hours. The injury No.1 was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. Injuries No. 2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt object. Doctor proved his report (Ex.P-15) and said that the case was of the murder and the cause of death was the injury upon head. Injury caused by hard and blunt object upon the head and result of injury was the fracture in the bones and also injury in the brain was the cause of death. He also said that he seized and handover the cloths of deceased to the police. Injury caused by hard and blunt object upon the head and result of injury was the fracture in the bones and also injury in the brain was the cause of death. He also said that he seized and handover the cloths of deceased to the police. Therefore, it appears that the death of Tenu was homicidal. 12. Nilesh (PW4) is the important witness in this case, who was sleeping with the deceased in the night. The witness is the son of the accused aged about 14 years. He said in his statement that he was sleeping with his maternal grand father. His father always used to drink and abuse maternal grand father. The accused had gone to Multai since two days before and he came back on the date of incident. At that time he was in drunken condition and started abusing the mother of the witness. Thereafter his father came out from the house and took the torch from the deceased. The witness again said that he and his maternal grand father were sleeping and his mother was also going to sleep. At that moment father came back and woke my mother. The mother gave food to the father. Father took the food and also asked the mother to take food but mother said that she had already taken the food. Thereafter accused went away from the house and before going he locked the room of the mother from outside by latch. 13. The witness further said about the incident that his father came with Axe and attacked upon maternal grand father. At that time the witness was sleeping. But when the deceased called the name of Ankit then the witness woke up and saw that the accused again attacked by Axe upon the maternal grand father. Thereafter the accused opened the room and reached to the mother to cause her injury by Axe. The accused hold the Axe but witness took the Axe from the accused behind the cot. The accused tried to press the neck of his wife. When witness tried to save her mother the accused bit his finger of the hand. 14. The witness Nilesh (PW4) said that he went to her maternal uncle to inform the incident and came back with his maternal uncle Bhola, Gangaram, Goverdhan, Ramesh and Chironji, also came there but Tenu was expired at that time. 15. When witness tried to save her mother the accused bit his finger of the hand. 14. The witness Nilesh (PW4) said that he went to her maternal uncle to inform the incident and came back with his maternal uncle Bhola, Gangaram, Goverdhan, Ramesh and Chironji, also came there but Tenu was expired at that time. 15. As per the statement of Nilesh he went to the house of his maternal uncle and narrated the incident. Thereafter he came back on the spot with maternal uncle. Bhola (PW3) is the maternal uncle of the accused. He said in para-3 that at about 10:30 p.m. in the night Nilesh came to him and informed that his father committed murder of Tenu with the help of Axe and blood was oozing. Witnesses reached on the spot where he met with Laxmi Bai who also said that her husband murdered maternal grand father and fled away. The witness also said that he informed the police on telephone and police reached on the spot then he lodged the report (Ex.P-9). Police also prepared spot map (Ex.P-5) and seized the blood stained cloths of Tenu (Ex.P-6). He again said that Police issued notice to prepare inquest Panchnama (Ex.P-4). 16. Gopal (PW-7) is also the maternal uncle of Nilesh and the son of deceased Tenu. This witness also said that at about 11:30 to 12:00 a.m. in the night Nilesh came to his house and knocked the door. Nilesh informed to mother of the witness that Ruplal murdered Tenu by the help of Axe. Nilesh again narrated the entire incident to his brother and Bhola (PW3). Thereafter they all reached on the spot at that time his father was alive. But after sometime he expired. The witness said that after reaching on the spot he took the Motor Cycle of Sanju and went away for taking Jeep. When he was coming back and was on the way, he got information that his father has been expired. This witness said in para-6 that accused always quarreled with the sister of the witness and because of this reason the father of the witness was living with sister (wife of accused). Therefore, the statement of Nilesh is found support from the statement of Bhola (PW3) and Gopal (PW7). This witness said in para-6 that accused always quarreled with the sister of the witness and because of this reason the father of the witness was living with sister (wife of accused). Therefore, the statement of Nilesh is found support from the statement of Bhola (PW3) and Gopal (PW7). Both supported the fact that Nilesh came to them and narrated the entire incident and gave the information that the accused committed murder of Tenu by the help of Axe. In addition to this evidence the statement is also found supported from the evidence of Laxmi Bai (PW6) who is wife of the appellant/accused. This witness also said that the incident took place at 11:30 p.m. in the night. Witness was sleeping in her room and Nilesh was sleeping with the father of the witness upon the cot. Ruplal (accused) went to village who came at about 11:30 p.m. and attacked upon Tenu by the Axe. When the accused left the house he also locked the room of witness from outside when the accused came back and attacked on father of the witness. Thereafter, he came in the room of witness after opening the room from outside. The witness again said that the accused beat her but her son saved her by taking Axe from the hand of the accused and the accused cut the finger of Nilesh by his teeth. Witness also supported the fact that after 10 to 15 minutes his brother Bhola and Gopal came there and accused fled away from the spot. 17. Bilsiya Bai (PW5) is the wife of the deceased Tenu. This witness also supports the evidence of Laxmi, Bhola, Gopal and Nilesh. The witness said that at about 11:30 p.m. in the night Nilesh told that his father committed the murder of maternal grand father. Thereafter all family members reached there and found Tenu in dead condition with the injuries upon head and eye. Several persons of the village were also present there. This witness also stated in para-4 that the accused always used to quarrel with the wife. In para-6 the witness said that when she reached on the spot Ruplal was not there. 18. Nilesh (PW4) also stated that villagers Gangaram, Goverdhan, Ramesh and Chironji were also reached on the spot. Out of these four witnesses prosecution examined Chironji (PW2) and Goverdhan (PW8). Chrinonji (PW2) also supported the prosecution case. In para-6 the witness said that when she reached on the spot Ruplal was not there. 18. Nilesh (PW4) also stated that villagers Gangaram, Goverdhan, Ramesh and Chironji were also reached on the spot. Out of these four witnesses prosecution examined Chironji (PW2) and Goverdhan (PW8). Chrinonji (PW2) also supported the prosecution case. He stated that the incident was not seen by him. He heard the sound of weeping of wife of the deceased at about 12:00 or 12:30 a.m. in the night, then he and other villagers reached there. He saw the injuries upon the eyes of Tenu, who was lying on the cot and the accused was not there because he was absconded. He again said that Nilesh told that Ruplal had committed murder of grand father Tenu by the help of Axe. This witness is also related inquest Panchanama (PW4), spot map (PW5), seizure of the article from the spot (PW6) and Patwari spot map (PW7). The witness supported all the four documents. 19. Second witness Goverdhan (PW8) also stated that at about 12:00 a.m in the night. He heard sound that Tenu is killed. Thereafter he reached on the spot and saw Tenu, who was dead. Witness again stated that Nilesh and Laxmi told him that Ruplal committed the murder of Tenu. The witness again said in para-2 that accused created nuisance several times because of habit of drinking. The witness himself interrupted. This witness also supported the inquest Panchanama (PW4). 20. Upon close scrutiny of the statement of aforesaid all witnesses we do not find any reason to disbelieve any of them. All witnesses are related to the accused and deceased both. There is no reason for false implication. Nilesh is the real son of the accused and Laxmi Bai is real wife of the accused. There is no reason for aforesaid two witnesses for telling a false story against accused. Therefore, it appears that the testimony of Nilesh is found reliable from all corners and also found support from evidence of aforesaid all witnesses. 21. P.R. Sirohi (PW14) is Assistant Sub Inspector posted at Police Station, Multai. He said that when he was on general round at that time, he received the information from Police Station, which was note down in Rojnamcha Sana No.1039/2007. 21. P.R. Sirohi (PW14) is Assistant Sub Inspector posted at Police Station, Multai. He said that when he was on general round at that time, he received the information from Police Station, which was note down in Rojnamcha Sana No.1039/2007. The said witness said that after receiving aforesaid information he reached village Somagarh with police force where Bhola son of Tenu lodged the Merg intimation (Ex.P-17) and also lodged First Information Report (Ex.P-9). Both the documents were written by the witness on the spot. In later part of his statement he said that upon the basis of aforesaid two documents he also registered original Merg (Ex.P-23 and P-22). The witness further said that he prepared spot map (Ex.P-5) and seized Baniyan, bed-sheet and one piece of cushion (Gada) by Ex.P-5. He again stated that he took Ruplal in his custody and upon the information given by Ruplal he prepared memo (Ex.P-5). Thereafter he seized an Axe given by accused (Ex.P-2) then he arrested the accused by Ex.P-18. The witness again said that he issued notice (Ex.P-3) and prepared inquest Panchnama (Ex.P-4). Thereafter he sent the dead body for postmortem. Upon the statement of P.R.Sirohi, it appears that he received information from the accused and seized Axe given by the accused. The witness also stated that seized articles were sent to FSL and FSL report Ex.P-21 was received. As per FSL report (Ex.P-21) Kulhadi was exhibited as “D”. Human blood has been found upon Axe and the group of blood was found as “B” group, which is also blood group of deceased Tenu. Therefore, it appears that the blood group of blood found on Baniyan, bed-sheet and cushion was found on the Axe also was seized from the accused. 22. Therefore, it appears from the entire evidence that the prosecution was successes in proving the case under section 302 of IPC against the accused. The lower Court did not commit any mistake by convicting the accused because the case was supported by eye witness Nilesh and the medical evidence as well as FSL evidence and the evidence of other witnesses. The sentence awarded by the trial Court also appears to be proper. Hence, appeal having no force, therefore, dismissed. 23. The accused/appellant is in jail since 20.6.2007. A copy of this judgment be sent to him through jail authority.