Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 157 (MP)

Tantu @ Kamal Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-02-06

ANJULI PALO, S.K.GANGELE

body2018
JUDGMENT Gangele, J. -- 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed in S. T. No.124/2007. Trial Court convicted the appellant under section 302 of IPC and sentenced for imprisonment of life with fine of Rs.200/-. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the deceased was younger sister of the appellant. Appellant was not happy with the deceased because she had married against the wishes of the appellant. On the date of incident i.e. 27.9.2006 the deceased along with her aunt Sehma Bai was coming back from a Well. She was carrying water in a little pot (Kundi) on her head. Appellant came behind her. He had an Axe with him and inflicted blows of Axe on her neck. Her uncle came on the spot. Thereafter, He noticed that deceased was lying on the earth. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station by Jagdish. Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. Appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. trial Court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that evidence of related eye-witnesses and other witnesses is not reliable. As per evidence of Doctor there was no injury of axe on the person of the body of the deceased. Hence, trial Court has committed an error in holding that offence has been proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant. There is eye witness. Appellant is real brother of the deceased. There is no likelihood that any person would falsely implicate real brother. trial Court has appreciated the evidence properly. Hence, appeal be dismissed. 5. Sehma PW2 is eye witness. She deposed that appellant is my nephew. The deceased was the sister of appellant. She was married with Jagdish one year before. I and deceased Sushila Bai were coming back after fetching water from the Well. Deceased had a metal pot on her head filled with water. I heard the sound of falling the pot on the earth. Thereafter, I saw by turning back side that appellant had inflicted three blows of axe on the neck of the deceased, on my crying appellant ran away. The deceased was died on the spot. My husband and other villagers reached on the spot. I heard the sound of falling the pot on the earth. Thereafter, I saw by turning back side that appellant had inflicted three blows of axe on the neck of the deceased, on my crying appellant ran away. The deceased was died on the spot. My husband and other villagers reached on the spot. In her cross-examination she specially deposed that I myself had seen that appellant had inflicted blows of axe on the neck of the deceased, thereafter, he ran away from the spot. 6. Jagdish PW1 is the husband of the deceased. He deposed that I had love relationship with the deceased and one year before I married with the deceased. The deceased had gone to Well along with her aunt Sehma Bai to fetch water. On hearing cry I reached on the spot, at that time appellant was not present on the spot. My uncle told me that appellant had inflicted blows by Axe on the neck of the deceased. I and other villagers reached on the spot. We had noticed that deceased was died. Thereafter, merg was lodged on my information. Merg is Ex.P.1 and FIR is Ex.P.2, I signed both the documents. I also signed spot map Ex.P.3. Police seized a metal pot (Kundi) from the spot by Ex.P.6 and I signed the same. I also signed Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. 7. Dinesh Kumar PW3 deposed that Police seized metal pot (Kundi). Police also seized plan earth and red earth from the spot before me and I signed the same. Sevlal PW4 is the uncle of the appellant. He deposed that Jagdish was married with Sushila Bai. At around 8.00 O’clock in the morning I heard cry of my wife and reached on the spot. Jagdish was behind me, other villagers also reached on the spot. We noticed that deceased was lying on the earth. There were number of injuries on her body. My wife told me that appellant had killed the deceased. Thereafter, I went to Kotwar and informed him. Makhan PW5 also deposed that after hearing cry I reached on the spot and noticed that deceased was lying on the earth. 8. Balram Yadav (PW6) recorded Dehati Nalisi and FIR. He deposed that I signed both the documents. Ashok PW8 is the witness of memorandum. He turned hostile. Lakshman Prasad Jharia PW9 is Patwari. Makhan PW5 also deposed that after hearing cry I reached on the spot and noticed that deceased was lying on the earth. 8. Balram Yadav (PW6) recorded Dehati Nalisi and FIR. He deposed that I signed both the documents. Ashok PW8 is the witness of memorandum. He turned hostile. Lakshman Prasad Jharia PW9 is Patwari. He deposed that I prepared spot map and signed the same. 9. Dr. Y. K. Jharia deposed that I was posted at the relevant time as BMO in CHC Mehandwani and on 27.9.2006 I performed post-mortem of the deceased. I noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased. (i) Incised wound 2”x ½” x ½” back side of the neck occipital bone. Margin of bone was cut. (ii) Incised wound 2”x 1" x ½” on the neck 4th cervical vertical. Margins were clear cut. (iii) Incised wound 2”x 1" x 1” near injury No.2. Margins were clear cut and due to this injury spinal cord was cut in two part. The deceased was died due to the injuries suffered by her. The injuries could be caused by Axe. There is cross-examination of Doctor that whether injuries could be caused by the Axe or not. 10. M. L. Rahangdale PW12 deposed that at the relevant time I was posted as ASI at P. S. Dindori. Accused had given memorandum (Ex.P.11) before me, I signed the same and on the instruction of the accused an axe fitted with bamboos handle was recovered and seized by seizure memo and signed the same. Axe was sent for chemical examination to FSL. 11. Ranjit Bhadoria PW13, Investigation officer deposed that I conducted investigation of the incident and merg intimation Ex.P.1 was recorded, I signed the same, thereafter FIR was recorded Ex.P.2 and I signed the same. I also prepared seizure memo of Metal Pot (Kundi) Ex. P.6 and signed the same. Thereafter, I seized clothes and hair of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P.7. I recorded statements of Jagdish, Sehma Bai Kehar Singh, Premdas, Dinesh Kumar, Shivlal, Samaroo Gond and Makhan. I also seized plan earth and red earth from the spot. 12. Fir Ex.P.2 was lodged by PW1 within three hours of the incident on the same day. In the report it is mentioned that appellant had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries by Axe. PW2 is eyewitness, his evidence is natural because she was accompaning the deceased. I also seized plan earth and red earth from the spot. 12. Fir Ex.P.2 was lodged by PW1 within three hours of the incident on the same day. In the report it is mentioned that appellant had killed the deceased by inflicting injuries by Axe. PW2 is eyewitness, his evidence is natural because she was accompaning the deceased. She specifically deposed that she had seen that appellant had inflicted three blows by Axe on the neck of the deceased. The husband of the deceased along with other villagers reached on the spot after hearing cry of the deceased and PW2 told them that appellant had killed the deceased. PW1 husband of the deceased deposed the same facts that appellant had inflicted blows by Axe on the neck of the deceased. This evidence is natural because evidence is corroborated from the evidence of Doctor PW11, who performed autopsy of the deceased. He deposed that he noticed incised wounds on the persons of the body of the deceased. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the injuries described by the Doctor could not be caused by Axe, we are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant because injuries were incised injuries, those injuries could be caused by Axe i.e. hard and sharp edged weapon. Appellant applied sufficient force. He had inflicted three injuries on the neck of the deceased. He was not happy with the deceased because she had married on her own wish. He was armed with Axe. He came behind the deceased and inflicted three blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased. 14. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, in our opinion, trial Court has rightly held appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder and awarded proper sentence. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. Abhishek Tiwari for appellant; Vijay Soni, Government Advocate for respondent/State.