Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 236 (MP)

Vijay Singh @ Vijju v. State of M. P.

2018-02-27

SUSHIL KUMAR PALO, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2018
ORDER Ms. Kasrekar, J.--1. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.4.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 178/2006 by Sessions Judge, Balaghat thereby convicting the appellants under sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 300/- respectively each. It is further directed that in case of default of payment, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two months respectively. 2. According to the prosecution story, on 19.8.2006 at 8.00 ‘O’ clock in the night when complainant-Gyaniram after taking meal came to outside from the house, he heard shriek and cry of Dhanlal, he ran towards the house of Dhanlal and on reach in front the house of Dhanlal he saw that deceased Govind s/o Hemraj was lying in the earth and blood was oozing from his stomach. On asking by Dhanlal, deceased Govind told that appellants/ accused demanded Rs. 500/- from him and when he refused to give the money, the appellants/accused gave knife blows on his body. Thereafter, Dhanlal and Radhelal brought the deceased to the house of Dhanlal and at that time villagers Keshav Bisen, Basant and Tularam Gautam also came there. The incident was also narrated to them and at that time Hemraj, father of the deceased-Govind also came. After sometime of incident, Govind died. The matter was reported to Police Station by Gyaniram, Keshav Bishen, Madhu Vasnik, Tularam and on the basis of intimation given by them, first information report was registered and the matter was taken into investigation. After completing the investigation, challan was submitted before the competent Court. As the matter was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed to the Court of Session where the trial was commenced. 3. Trial Court framed charge under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC against the appellants. The appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. In their statement recorded under section 313 of CrPC appellants stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter and in their defence they did not examine any witness. 4. Trial Court after recording the evidence and on appreciation of the evidences as well as the material available on record found the appellants guilty, thus, convicted them under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned. 4. Trial Court after recording the evidence and on appreciation of the evidences as well as the material available on record found the appellants guilty, thus, convicted them under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence without proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. It is submitted that the incident was happened in the darkness, therefore, the identity of the assailants could not be ascertained, thus, roping the appellants in the said incident is bad in law, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that after receiving injuries, the deceased would be unable to speak and as such the evidence pertaining to the oral dying declaration is completely false and fabricated. It is further contended that testimony of eye witness Dhanlal (PW6) is wholly unreliable for the simple reason that the name of this witness does not find place in the FIR and he is a close relatives of the deceased, thus, relying upon the testimony of the witness who is close relative of the deceased cannot be sustained in the eye of law, hence conviction of the appellants is bad in law. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no motive for the appellants to have committed the murder and it is not known as to whose blow resulted into fatal injury, therefore, the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside. In view of aforesaid, he prays that by allowing this appeal, the appellant may be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate supports the impugned judgment and submitted that it were the appellants who gave knife blows on the body of the deceased and due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he succumbed. In these premises, he prays that while dismissing the appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court may be affirmed. 7. During trial, prosecution examined Dr. Nagorao Rangare and eye witnesses Gyaniram (PW1) and Dhanlal (PW6). In these premises, he prays that while dismissing the appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court may be affirmed. 7. During trial, prosecution examined Dr. Nagorao Rangare and eye witnesses Gyaniram (PW1) and Dhanlal (PW6). Gyaniram (PW1) who is scriber of the FIR, in his statement, has stated that when he heard hue and cry, he found that number of persons were standing on the road and Govind was lying down at the spot and when he asked who caused injuries to him, he said that Yuvraj and Vijay cuased injuries to him by knife. After stating the said statement, Govind died. This is the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to Gyaniram (PW1). Statement of Gyaniram (PW1) is unrebutted in the cross-examination also. Thus, Gyaniram (PW1) is the eye witness. Dhanlal (PW6), in his statement, has stated that he saw that accused persons were causing injuries to deceased-Govind at the side of the road which was 20 foot away from his house. He further stated that on hearing his shriek, his brother Radhelal, Kanhaiyalal and other family members came at the spot, then accused persons fled away from the spot. When he asked Govind who caused injuries to him, Govind stated that accused persons gave knife blows on his body. Thus, Dhanlal (PW6 ) is also the eye witness of the incident before whom deceased had given oral dying declaration. His statement also remained unrebutted in the crossexamination. Statement of Hemraj (PW2) who is father of the deceased is also corroborated with the statement made by Gyaniram (PW1) and Dhanlal (PW6). Thus, he is also eye witness of the incident. 8. Dr.Nagorao (PW5) who has conducted postmortem, in his statement has categorically stated that the deceased sustained seven injuries on outer side of the body and five injuries in the internal side of the body. As per his opinion, cause of death is hypovolemia shock due to excessive blood loss on account of multiorgan injuries. He further stated that all the stab wounds were caused by hard and sharp edged object and they are ante mortem. Thus, the evidence of eyewitnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence as there are corresponding injuries. As per his opinion, cause of death is hypovolemia shock due to excessive blood loss on account of multiorgan injuries. He further stated that all the stab wounds were caused by hard and sharp edged object and they are ante mortem. Thus, the evidence of eyewitnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence as there are corresponding injuries. From the record of the case, it reveals that the statement of eye witness Dhanlal (PW6) before whom the deceased had given oral dying declaration, has also been corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses Gyaniram (PW1) and Hemraj (PW2). Thus, on the basis of overall evidence recorded by the trial Court, the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants appears to be just and proper. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere into the finding arrived at by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 9. In view of aforesaid discussions, the criminal appeal is devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.