Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 508 (MP)

Vinod Kumar v. State of M. P.

2018-05-18

RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT Ms. Kasrekar, J.--1. This appeal has filed by the appellant from the jail challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.1.2008 passed in Session Trial No. 155/2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge Gadarwara, District Narsingpur, thereby convicting appellant for the offence under section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It has further been directed that in case of default of payment, the appellant also suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. According to prosecution story, appellant/accused is the nephew of complainant Ram Ji. It is alleged that on 19.5.2003 at 3 o’clock in the night due to family land dispute, when Munni Bai went to bind the buffalo, the appellant who was already “hiding with bad intention at the spot gave axe blows on the person of deceased-Munni Bai. On hearing shriek of Munni Bai complainant-Ram Ji came on the spot and saw that appellant was having axe and deceased was lying on the earth, blood was oozing. It is also alleged that appellant threatened to complainant-Ram Ji and deceased that if the matter was reported to any one, then he will kill complainantalso on hearing hue and cry, Ram Prasad Dubey came at the spot and ran to rescue them, on this appellant told him that if he will intervene in the matter, he will face the consequence and thereafter appellant fled away from the spot. At 5-6 o’clock Ram Prasad Dubey alongwith other villagers brought the deceased at hospital and during treatment at Government Hospital Narsingpur deceased succumbed. 3. The matter was reported at police station, Kareli, where FIR was registered at Crime No. 283/2003 and the matter was taken into investigation. During investigation, police prepared spot map, panchnama and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem, recorded the statement of the witness under section 161 of CrPC, seized blood stained earth from the spot, seized the apparel of the deceased and at the instance of the appellant an iron axe was seized, arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo. 4. On completion of the investigation, challan was submitted before competent Court. As the matter was under trial by the Court of session, therefore, the same was committed to the Court of session and“from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. 5. 4. On completion of the investigation, challan was submitted before competent Court. As the matter was under trial by the Court of session, therefore, the same was committed to the Court of session and“from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. 5. The trial Court framed charge under section 302 of IPC against the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilty and prayed for trial. In his statement recorded under section 313 of CrPC, appellant stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter and in his defence, he did not examine any witness. 6. The trial Court after recording the evidence and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the appellant was found to be guilty, thus, convicted him under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 by him that the evidence of independent witness is hear say evidence. It is further submitted that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Eye witnesses of the incident are closely related to each other and are interested witnesses to the incident, therefore, on the basis of their testimony, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law, then liable to be set aside. It is argued that there was no motive for the appellant to have committed such type of act, therefore, the conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. In view of aforesaid, he prays that by allowing this appeal, the appellant may be acquitted. 8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned judgment and has submitted that it was the appellant who gave axe blows on the person of the deceased and due to injury sustained by the deceased, she succumbed. In these premises, she prays that while dismissing this appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court may be affirmed. 9. In the present case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in their favour. The star witnesses namely Ram Prasad Dubey (PW4), Sandeep Upadhyay (PW7) and Dr. K.S. Rajpoot (PW10). In these premises, she prays that while dismissing this appeal, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court may be affirmed. 9. In the present case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in their favour. The star witnesses namely Ram Prasad Dubey (PW4), Sandeep Upadhyay (PW7) and Dr. K.S. Rajpoot (PW10). Ram Prasad Dubey (PW4), in his statement, has stated that on 19.5.2003 when he was sleeping in his house, he heard voice of Munni Bai he, therefore, came out from the house and found that the accused/appellant is having an axe on his hand and has caused injuries on the head and neck of the deceased. Thereafter the police has reached on the spot and seized the axe from the accused/appellant. He also stated that there was some dispute between the Munni Bai and Vinod Kumar regarding the land. In the cross examination, he said that he has not seen Vinod Kumar causing the injury to the deceased, however, he was seen that Viond Kumar was carrying an axe in his hand, therefore he stated that the appellant has caused death of the deceased. 10. The second important witness is the Sandeep Upadhyay (PW7) he is nine year of age and he is son of the deceased. In his statement, he stated that in “the night on 19.5.2003, the appellant caused injuries to his mother by axe. On that date, his mother was went out side the house for binding the buffalo at that time he heard the shriek of his mother to rescue her, he, therefore immediately went out side the house and seen that the appellant was causing injuries to his mother by axe. This statement of the Sandeep Upadhyay (PW7) remain unchanged in the cross-examination also. Dr. K.S. Rajpoot (PW10) in his statement has stated that the injuries which were caused on the deceased has been caused by hard and blunt object. These injuries are sufficient for causing death of the deceased. Thus, relying on the over all evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for committing an offence under section 302 of the IPC. 11. These injuries are sufficient for causing death of the deceased. Thus, relying on the over all evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for committing an offence under section 302 of the IPC. 11. In the present case, the son of the deceased Sandeep Upadhyay (PW7) in his statement categorically stated that he saw the appellant while he was causing injury to her mother on head and neck and his statement remain unchanged in the cross-examination also. Ram Prasad Dubey (PW4) in his statement has also corroborated the evidence of Sandeep Upadhyay (PW7). On the basis of statement of two witnesses and over all statements of other witnesses, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for convicting an offence under section 302 of IPC. That so for as the motive part is concerned, the Ram Prasad Dubey and some other witnesses in their statements deposed that there is some land“dispute between the deceased and the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere into the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.