Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 834 (MP)

Moorat Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-10-01

R.S.JHA, SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2018
JUDGMENT Jha, J.--1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by judgment dated 23.9.2008 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Chhatarpur in S.T. No. 34/2004 whereby the trial Court has held each of the appellants guilty of offences punishable under sections 302/34 on two counts of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulations. In addition appellant No. 1 has also been held guilty under sections 325, 323 and 324/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to under R.I for one year; R.I for six months and R.I for six months respectively. Appellants No. 2 to 4 have been held guilty for offence punishable under sections 325/34, 323/34 and 324 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-; R.I for 3 months and R.I for 6 months respectively, with default stipulations. Appellant No. 3 has also been held guilty for offence punishable under section 324/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I for 6 months, for the murder of Ramcharan and Chandrabhan alias Lallu. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that there was a serious dispute between the appellants and the deceased persons in respect of agricultural land situated in village Kitpura, District Chhatarpur. On the fateful day, i.e. on 10.11.2003, the appellants were harvesting paddy on the disputed land. When the deceased party objected to the same stating that the land belongs to them and the appellants had no right to forcibly harvest the paddy, an altercation took place between them resulting in the death of the deceased Ramcharan and his son Chandrabhan alias Lallu. 3. On a report being lodged at Police Station Gourihar District Chhatarpur on 10.11.2003 by PW1 Chhunvaddi, the criminal law was set in motion. 4. The trial Court, relying upon the statements of the four eye witnesses namely; PW1 Chhunvaddi, PW2 Santosh, PW3 Jamuniya and PW4 Ballu alias Balram as well as the statements of Dr. L.C. Chourasiya (PW7) and Dr. M.K. Prajapati, (PW9) and the medical evidence on record as well as the other oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, has held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under section 302/34 of the IPC, on two counts, for the murder of the deceased Ramcharan and Chandrabhan alias Lallu. 5. L.C. Chourasiya (PW7) and Dr. M.K. Prajapati, (PW9) and the medical evidence on record as well as the other oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, has held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under section 302/34 of the IPC, on two counts, for the murder of the deceased Ramcharan and Chandrabhan alias Lallu. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, in the instant case, a free fight took place between the parties in which a counter case was registered by the deceased party as well and that the appellants had also received injuries. It is submitted that the trial Court has totally ignored this aspect while recording a finding to the effect that the appellants had committed the murder of both the deceased persons. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the present case is not one of murder but is infact one that falls within Exception 4 to section 300 of the IPC as the act was committed by the appellants without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion on account of a sudden quarrel without the appellants taking any undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants, taking this Court through the statements of the four eye witnesses namely; PW1 Chhunvaddi, PW2 Santosh, PW3 Jamuniya and PW4 Ballu alias Balram, submits that their statements clearly establish that the appellants were infact harvesting paddy in the field concerned since the morning and it was the deceased and their relatives who were the aggressors and who had entered upon the field at about 2:00 p.m. and forced the fight upon the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants were also required to defend themselves and in such circumstances the trial Court has failed to take into consideration the fact that the present case also falls within the first Exception to section 300 of the I.P.C as it is a case of grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased party on account of which the incident occurred. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, in such circumstances, as the present case is one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as the entire incident took place on account of grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased party and in a sudden unpremeditated fight, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 10. Apparently, there is no perversity or illegality in the analysis made by the trial Court based on the evidence of the four eye witnesses namely; PW1 Chhunvaddi, PW2 Santosh, PW3 Jamuniya and PW4 Ballu alias Balram as well as the statements of Dr. L.C. Chourasiya (PW7) and Dr. M.K. Prajapati, (PW9) and recording a finding that the deceased persons died on account of the injuries inflicted by the appellants. In such circumstances, the only issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and which is required to be considered by this Court is as to whether the offence committed by the appellants is one of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 11. As stated earlier, the fact that the appellants assaulted the deceased as a result of which the deceased died, is clearly established on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The statements of Dr. L.C. Chourasiya (PW7) and Dr. M.K. Prajapati, (PW9) clearly establish that there were as many as 12 injuries on the person of the deceased Chandrabhan alias Lallu and as many as 15 injuries on the body of the deceased Ramcharan. The medical evidence and the statements of Dr. L.C. Chourasiya (PW7) and Dr. M.K. Prajapati, (PW9) further establish that most of the injuries were on the head of the deceased persons which have resulted in fracture of the skull bones and the other injuries inflicted by the appellants have also resulted in fracture of bone of the arms. 12. The statements of the witnesses as well as the evidence on record also establish the fact that the trial Court has rightly recorded a conclusion that the land belonged to the deceased party and that there was a long standing dispute between the two groups, namely the appellant and the deceased party relating to the land in question. 13. 12. The statements of the witnesses as well as the evidence on record also establish the fact that the trial Court has rightly recorded a conclusion that the land belonged to the deceased party and that there was a long standing dispute between the two groups, namely the appellant and the deceased party relating to the land in question. 13. In such circumstances, the mere act on the part of the appellants to enter upon the field and harvest the paddy amounted to voluntary provocation on their part. It is also clear from the evidence on record, regarding the past enmity between the parties, that they were fully aware that their act could result in a physical altercation between the groups. The number and manner of injuries inflicted by the appellants upon the person of the deceased also indicates that the present case is not one where the appellants, on account of some sudden provocation, inflicted a single injury which resulted in the death of the deceased persons. On the contrary, the number and manner of injuries suffered by the deceased indicate that the appellants continued to assault the deceased and inflicted serious grievous injuries upon their person and the number of injuries inflicted by them establish that their very intent was to commit their murder. 14. It is also clear from a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court specifically paragraphs 40 to 42 of the judgment, that the trial Court has extensively considered the effect and impact of the injuries on the persons of the appellants which were simple in nature and has clearly held that the prosecution has been able to establish that mere presence of the injuries on the persons of the appellants, specially looking to the manner in which the incident occurred, does not cast any shadow of doubt on the statements of the eye-witnesses whose statements regarding the incident are consistent, reliable and trustworthy. 15. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court and the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity, warranting interference by this Court. 15. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court and the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity, warranting interference by this Court. We are also of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the case of the appellants falls within Exceptions 1 and 4 of section 300 of the IPC, is also misconceived in view of the clear evidence on record to the contrary which has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 16. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 17. It is informed that appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith or shall surrender to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. The appellant No. 2 is already in jail. He shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence. 18. The appeal filed by the appellants is, accordingly, dismissed.