Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 460 (MP)

GHISILAL s/o MAYARAM v. STATE OF M. P.

2018-05-05

J.P.GUPTA, S.K.GANGELE

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. K. GANGELE, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 6-8-2008 passed in S.T. No. 20/2008. Appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. Trial Court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in earlier section while RI for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- in later. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased family in regard to fetching of water from the Well. A report was lodged at the police station. On 4-12-2007 at about 10-11 O’clock in the morning deceased along with his sons Vinod and Ravi Kumar were on the field at that time appellant had abused them. Thereafter, at about 4-5 O’clock in the evening when the deceased and two sons Ravi kumar and Vinod were returning back from the field along with cattle near Tapri of Mahesh appellant thrown a stone which had hit right leg of Ravi. Thereafter, appellant had inflicted a blow of Ballam on the head of the deceased Prahlad. He had also tried to inflict blow of Ballam on Ravi Kumar. The deceased fell down and appellant had given repeated blows of Ballam on the deceased. Brothers of the deceased returned back to the village and informed the incident to the villagers. They reached on the spot. Injured person was taken to the Doctor where he was declared dead. Report of the incident was lodged by the brother of the deceased P. W.1. Thereafter, police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. Trial court held appellant guilty and awarded punishment as mentioned above. 3. Mohanlal P. W.1, Vinod P. W.2, and Ravikumar P. W.3 are eyewitnesses of the incident. 4. Mohanlal P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. He was present on the spot. He deposed that there was a quarrel between Komal and deceased Prahlad Singh. Appellant had illwill against my family. On the date of the incident i.e. 4-12-2007 appellant abused Komal Prasad when he had gone to irrigate the filed. 4. Mohanlal P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. He was present on the spot. He deposed that there was a quarrel between Komal and deceased Prahlad Singh. Appellant had illwill against my family. On the date of the incident i.e. 4-12-2007 appellant abused Komal Prasad when he had gone to irrigate the filed. At around 4.00 O’clock in the evening I and my brother Prahlad went to field to take back our cattle at that time appellant abused the deceased, both the sons of the deceased Ravi Kumar and Vinod were also present on the spot. There was scuffle between the appellant and the deceased when we were coming back to our house along with our cattle, appellant had thrown a stone which had hit at my right leg. Thereafter, he chased us. He was armed with Ballam. He had inflicted a blow of Ballam on the head of the deceased. We tried to pacify the appellant and requested him not to quarrel. Prahlad fell down, thereafter, appellant inflicted blows of Ballam at Ravi son of the deceased also. The deceased fell down. Appellant had inflicted repeated blows of Ballam at the deceased. Thereafter, I and other family member went to the village and informed about the incident to the villagers. Appellant went away from the spot. We had taken the deceased to Shyampur Hospital where Doctor declared the deceased dead. I lodged the report at the police station and signed the same. Merg was registered, which is Ex.P.2, I signed the same. Police prepared Panchnama of dead body and spot map, I signed both the documents. I, Vinod and Ravi Kumar were also examined by the Doctor. 5. Another witness is Vinod P. W.2. He deposed the same facts as deposed by P. W. 1. He was also present at the spot. He further deposed that when I and other persons were coming back to home along with cattle, appellant chased us. He had inflicted blows of Ballam on the head of the deceased. He had also inflicted blow of Ballam on Ravi. When my father fell down, he further inflicted blows at him. We came back to village and informed the villagers. Thereafter, my father had taken the deceased to Shyampur Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. I signed Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. 6. Another witness is Ravikumar P. W.3, who is minor. He had also inflicted blow of Ballam on Ravi. When my father fell down, he further inflicted blows at him. We came back to village and informed the villagers. Thereafter, my father had taken the deceased to Shyampur Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. I signed Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. 6. Another witness is Ravikumar P. W.3, who is minor. He also deposed the same facts as deposed by P. W.1 and P. W.2 that appellant inflicted blows of Ballam on the person of the deceased. He further deposed that appellant had also beaten me. 7. Nandram P. W.4, Morsingh @ Moharsing P. W.5 and Sayeed Miyan P. W.6 are declared hostile. 8. Radheshyam Malviya P. W.7 is the witness of seizure. He verified that Ballam was seized by Ex.P.11. He further verified seizure of clothes which appellant was wearing at the time of incident vide Ex.P.13. 9. Shivnarayan Dhurve P. W.9 prepared spot map. 10. Dr. B. K. Chaturvedi P. W.10 deposed that on 5.12.2007, I was posted at District Hospital Sehore. He deposed that on 5.12.2007, I performed post-mortem of the deceased and noticed following injuries on the body of the person of the deceased : (1) Scalp wound 7 x 1½ cm x Bone deep major sharp bone also cut. (2) L.W. Over lt. Upper arm 3 x 1. (3) +- 8. cm. distance two wound 1 x 1 cm size. (4) 8 cm distance torn wound middle and ring finger. (5) Incised wound Rt. Hand extending up to middle of palm. (6) Contour of Rt forearm distorted and contour of Rt leg lost. 11. He further deposed that on internal examination, I noticed that there was a fracture of bone of head. There was a haematoma. He further deposed that there was a fracture of radius bone of the head. The deceased was died due to injuries suffered by him. He specifically deposed that police had sent to me a Ballam which was seized from the appellant and I had given my opinion that injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by Ballam. There is no cross-examination of this witness on this point by the defence. He further deposed that Injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause death. 12. S. L. Sonia P. W.11 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed that on 4-12-2007, I was posted as In-charge Station House Officer, Ahmadpur. There is no cross-examination of this witness on this point by the defence. He further deposed that Injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause death. 12. S. L. Sonia P. W.11 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed that on 4-12-2007, I was posted as In-charge Station House Officer, Ahmadpur. He deposed that on the basis of information supplied by Mohanlal a Dehati Nalisi Ex.P.1 was registered and I signed the same. Thereafter, merg was registered. I prepared the spot map Ex.P.5 and signed the same. He further deposed that I recorded statements of Mohanlal, Ravikumar, Vinod Kumar, Balachan, Nandram, Morsingh, Sayedmiya, Smt. Imartibai, Smt. Kesarbai and Jaggannath. Thereafter, I also seized plain earth and red earth by Ex.P.12 and on the memorandum of appellant Ex.P.10 a Ballam was seized by Ex.P.11. The clothes of the appellant were also seized by Ex.P.13. I signed all the documents. Seized articles were sent to FSL by Ex.P.6. In his cross-examination he admitted that I also noticed some injuries on the appellant. He was also sent for medical examination vide Ex.P.4. 13. Dr. H. P. Singh P. W.12 examined the injured Ravikumar. He deposed that he noticed one abrasion scratch size 4 x 2 cm on his left forearm. It was caused by hard and blunt object. Injury was simple in nature. I also examined Vinod and Mohanlal but I did not notice any injury. He admitted in his cross-examination that he also examined the appellant and noticed some scratches on right hand and an abrasion size 3 x 1½ cm on right knee. Such injury could be caused on failing on ground. Appellant examined defence witnesses. Those witnesses deposed that there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased in regard to fetching of water in that quarrel the appellant had also received some injuries. 14. Mohanlal P. W.1, Vinod P. W.2, and Ravikumar P. W.3 are eyewitnesses of the incident. They had specifically deposed that appellant had caused repeated injuries on the body of the person of the deceased by Ballam. Aforesaid evidence finds corroboration from medical evidence of Dr. B. K. Chaturvedi, who performed post-mortem of the deceased. He specifically deposed that injuries could be caused by Ballam, which was seized from the appellant. He noticed four incised injuries which were caused on vital part of the body of the deceased. Aforesaid evidence finds corroboration from medical evidence of Dr. B. K. Chaturvedi, who performed post-mortem of the deceased. He specifically deposed that injuries could be caused by Ballam, which was seized from the appellant. He noticed four incised injuries which were caused on vital part of the body of the deceased. Ravikumar also received injuries and from the possession of the appellant Ballam was seized. As per report of FSL human blood was found on Ballam seized from the appellant. 15. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, in our opinion, the intention and motive of the appellant was to cause death of the deceased. Appellant had also inflicted injury to Ravikumar. Hence, trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and awarded proper sentence. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant also received injuries, those injuries were not explained by the prosecution. Hence, prosecution concealed the genesis and origin of occurrence. We are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. As discussed above in the judgment that appellant received minor injury and that could be caused in falling down on the earth. Honble the Apex Court in the matter of Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 has held that if the accused suffered minor injury in the incident, it cannot be held that prosecution story is untrue and unreliable. The same principle has been followed by Honble the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagwan Sahai vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 13 SCC 171 . 17. In view of aforesaid, trial Court has rightly held guilty the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and awarded proper sentence. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.