Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 618 (MP)

Ram Karan Yadev v. State of M. P.

2018-07-12

AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, S.K.GANGELE

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.2.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 116/2006. The appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial Court held the appellant guilty and awarded sentence of life imprisonment. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that 5.7.2006 at around 6:30 p.m. in the evening, deceased had gone to the house of Roopram along with his friend Jainarayan to take books. He was standing in the Courtyard (angan). The appellant came there. He had an axe with him. He inflicted a blow of axe on the temporal region of the deceased. He fell down. Blood was oozing from his body. After hearing hue and cry, other persons reached on the spot. Information was sent to the police station. Police registered FIR and conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under sections 302 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant have submitted that conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of PW3 who is an eye witness. However, the evidence is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. In alternate, learned counsel have submitted that there was single blow alleged to be inflicted by the appellant, hence, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under section 304 Part I of IPC. 4. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the appellant had axe with him. He immediately inflicted a severe blow on the deceased, who was a child, without any reason. The deceased died on the spot. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for commission of offence of murder. 5. PW3 Jainarayan Yadav is the eye witness. He deposed that the deceased was his classmate. I went to the house of Ramniwas to take book. Deceased also came there along with with me. We were standing in the Courtyard. At that time, from the adjacent house, the appellant came there. He had an axe with him. He had inflicted a blow on the temporal region of the head of the deceased. Blood was oozing out. He fell down. I cried. Deceased also came there along with with me. We were standing in the Courtyard. At that time, from the adjacent house, the appellant came there. He had an axe with him. He had inflicted a blow on the temporal region of the head of the deceased. Blood was oozing out. He fell down. I cried. Thereafter, Ramsubhash Yadav, Rakesh Yadav and Pawan Yadav came there. I told the incident to the grandfather of the deceased. Deceased was died on the spot. I lodged the report, which is Ex.P6 and signed the same. Police registered merg Ex.P-7 and I signed the same. 6. Another witness is PW4 Ramniwas Yadav, at whose residence the deceased had gone. He deposed that Jainarayan and deceased Seetu came to my house on a bicycle. Jainarayan asked me for books of 9th class. Thereafter, I heard a sound of ^^HkIi** Then I noticed that my uncle (appellant) was standing in the Courtyard with an axe. Deceased was lying there. Thereafter, other persons came there after hearing cry of Jainarayan. I noticed injury on the temporal region of the deceased. The appellant had inflicted the injury. 7. PW5 Ramsubhash, who reached at the spot, deposed that when I reached there, other persons were also there. Deceased was lying on the earth. Appellant was also standing there. He had an axe with him. Police seÁed the axe on the memorandum of the appellant. Memorandum is Ex.P-9 and seÁure of axe is Ex.P-10. I signed both the documents. 8. PW2 Lakhanlal is Patwari, who prepared spot map Ex.P-4 and signed the same. PW1 Raghuveer Singh is another witness. He deposed that I came to know that the appellant had killed the deceased. 9. PW6 Dr. Rajendra Bairagi performed postmortem on the body of the deceased. He deposed that I noticed following injuries on the person of the body of the deceased: ^^,d dVk gqvk ?kko flj ds ckbZ rjQ tks fd dku ds lkFk gh dVk gqvk Fkk vkSj lkFk esa fupys tcM+s dh gM~Mh Hkh dV x;h Fkh ftldk vkdkj 4 bap yack 2 bap pkSM+k ,oa 1 bap xgjk FkkA vkSj ?kko tcM+s dks dkVdj eq[k xqgk rd FkkA ?kko ds nksuksa fdukjs lkQ FksA** He further deposed that the injury was sufficient to cause death. Death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. PW7 Mohan Jat is Investigating Officer. Death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. PW7 Mohan Jat is Investigating Officer. He deposed that I recorded merg Ex.P-7 and dehati nalishi Ex.P-6 and signed both the documents. He further deposed that I seÁed plain earth and red earth vide seÁure memo Ex.P-12 and signed the same. I recorded statements of the witnesses. I prepared spot map, which is Ex.P-8. On the memorandum of the appellant, an axe was seÁed vide seÁure memo Ex.P-10. The appellant was arrested. SeÁed articles were sent to Forensic Laboratory for examination. 11. PW3 Jainarayan Yadav is the eye witness. He was present on the spot. His presence on the spot is natural. PW4 Ramniwas Yadav, who is the nephew of the appellant, also deposed that the appellant had killed the deceased by axe. PW5 Ramsubhash verified the fact that the appellant was present on the spot. He had an axe with him at that time. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant had killed the deceased. 12. Next question is that what offence the appellant has committed? 13. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offence committed by the appellant would fall under section 304 Part I of IPC because there was single injury on the person of the body of the deceased. It was on the jaw. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments : A. Buddhu Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in (2011) 14 SCC 471 ; B. Chand Khan s/o Bannekhan and another v. State of M.P. reported in 2006 (3) MPLJ 549 ; C. Kailash v. State of M.P., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 420 . 14. In the case of Buddu Singh (supra), the facts are that there was grappling between the accused and the deceased, thereafter, the accused had given a blow on the head of the deceased. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable. In the case of Chand Khan (supra), there was no opinion of the doctor, as recorded by the Court, that the injury was grave and sufficient to cause death. Similarly, in the case of Kailash (supra), the accused had inflicted a blow on the head by blunt side of the axe of the victim. The deceased was died within two days of the incident. Similarly, in the case of Kailash (supra), the accused had inflicted a blow on the head by blunt side of the axe of the victim. The deceased was died within two days of the incident. In the present case, there was no quarrel. The accused came from the adjacent house. He had an axe with him and he had inflicted a severe blow on the temporal region of the deceased and the nature of injury was 4 inches in length, 2 inches in width and 1 inch in depth. The jaw was cut. The deceased was a boy. 15. In a celebrated case, Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1958 SC 465 , the Hon'ble apex Court has held as under in regard to intention : “Thus where no evidence or explanation is given about why the accused thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased with such force that it penetrated the bowels and three coils of the intestine came out of the wound and that digested food oozed out from cuts in three places, it would be perverse to conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. The question whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not one of law. Whether the wound is serious or otherwise, and if serious, how serious, is a totally separate and distinct question and has nothing to do with the question whether the prisoner intended to inflict the injury in question.” 16. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the question of law is that intention has to be gathered from the circumstances and the force that has been used by the accused to inflict the injury. In the present case, the appellant armed with axe came on the spot and he had inflicted severe blow on the head of the deceased. There was no altercation for anything. Deceased was a boy of tender age, who had come to the house of his friend to take books. The appellant used sharp side of the axe. The deceased died on the spot. Looking to the aforesaid evidence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for offence of murder and awarded a proper sentence. 17. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.