Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 971 (MP)

Naval Singh v. State of M. P.

2018-11-22

ANJULI PALO, J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Palo, J.--1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed by the Session Judge, Balaghat in Session Trial No. 175/2008 whereby he has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 4.7.2018 when Ashok (since deceased) was returning from the Lamta Bazar, the appellant met him and threatened him of dire consequences because of allowing appellant’s wife to stay with Ashok (since deceased) and his family. On 6.7.2008, after having dinner at night, Ashok was lying and sleeping on a cot at his house. His wife Urmila (PW1) and her sister Matulabai (PW2) was lying near the deceased on other cots. At about 9:00 p.m., the appellant armed with tangiya (sharp cutting weapon similar to axe) entered in the house and inflicted two blows on Ashok. Urmila Bai (PW1) saw the appellant near the deceased armed with tangiya and making assault. Thereafter, the appellant Matulabai grappled with the appellant, but he managed to escape from the spot. Hearing hue and cry, neighbors also came there. Ashok died on the spot. His wife Urmila Bai (PW1) lodged FIR immediately at police station Lamta District Balaghat on which offence under section 302 of IPC was registered against the appellant. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. 3. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 302 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innonce demanding trial. On the basis of testimony of the eyewitnesses Urmila Bai (PW1), Matulabai (PW2) and Komal Prasad (PW3) who was the last seen witness and Dr. D.P.Thakur (PW10) and corroborative evidence of Investigating Officer D.S.Mishra (PW11), the trial Court held that the appellant is guilty of committing offence under section 302 of IPC, hence, awarded sentence of life. 4. The appellant has challenged the aforesaid finding on the ground that he is innocent and not committed any offence. He further contended that there are material contradictions in the testimony of Urmila Bai (PW1) and Matulabai (PW2). After the incident, so many neighbors came to the spot but none of them were examined to prove the fact that anyone saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. Learned counsel contended that the deceased sustained only two injuries. He further contended that there are material contradictions in the testimony of Urmila Bai (PW1) and Matulabai (PW2). After the incident, so many neighbors came to the spot but none of them were examined to prove the fact that anyone saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. Learned counsel contended that the deceased sustained only two injuries. Therefore, the appellant can be made liable for offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC. On the other hand, appellant prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and acquittal from the charges levelled against him. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State contended that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant. Minor contradictions and omissions cannot adversely affect the prosecution case in favour of the appellant looking to the inocular testimony of the eye-witnesses. As per the Government Advocate, learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant on proper and sufficient ground. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not liable to be interfered with. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Considering the evidence brought on record, we find that the deceased and the appellant both are close relatives. Eye-witnesses Urmila Bai (PW1) and Matulabai (PW2) are also close relatives of the appellant. At the time of incident, presence of both the eye-witnesses on the spot is duly established and has not been challenged by the appellant in the cross-examination. 7. Urmila Bai (PW1) stated that at the time of incident, she was lying to sleep near the deceased in open premises. Her sister Matulabai (PW2) was sleeping with her at the same place. Their distance from the deceased was about 10 feet. At the time of incident, the place was well lit. They heard and saw the appellant armed with a tangiya, who was inflicting blows on the deceased Ashok with tangiya by which deceased received the injuries. This evidence is sufficient to establish that the appellant inflicted blows on the deceased. Further, both the witnesses Urmila Bai (PW1) and Matulabai (PW2) tried to restrain the appellant on the spot. Appellant was well known to both the witnesses and, therefore, they duly identified the accused. Their testimony was unshaken during the cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony against the appellant. We do not find any material contradiction or omission in their testimony. 8. Appellant was well known to both the witnesses and, therefore, they duly identified the accused. Their testimony was unshaken during the cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony against the appellant. We do not find any material contradiction or omission in their testimony. 8. Komal Prasad (PW3) is the witness who reached the spot just after the incident hearing the hue and cry. He saw the appellant armed with a weapon running away from the house of the deceased. He saw the injuries on the chest and shoulder of the deceased. 9. Dr. D.P.Thakur (PW10) conducted postmortem of the deceased on 7.7.2008. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Major incised wound at the middle region of the upper part of chest at sternoclavicular region sÁe 3x2x3½” with blood clot. (ii) Major incised would at anterior region of right side of shoulder region sÁe 2½ x1½ x2” with blood clot. 10. During internal examination Dr. D.P.Thakur (PW10) found that the trachea was completely cut, both the chambers of the heart were empty. Major blood vessels and superior vena cava, axillary and subclavian artery were cut down and clotted. He opined that the injuries were caused by hard and sharp edged object within 24 hours and the deceased died due to syncope, excessive bleeding and hemorrhage from injuries and mode of death was homicidal. All the injuries were sufficient to cause death of the deceased in natural course. Thus, looking to the above, we find that the testimony of the eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence. 11. Investigating Officer D.S.Mishra (PW11) registered FIR lodged by Urmila Bai (PW1) just after the incident. Named FIR was lodged promptly against the appellant which establishes that there is no concocted story made by the close relatives of the deceased to falsely implicate the appellant in the case. Investigation Officer D.S.Mishra (PW11) seÁed blood stained tangiya and blood stained shirt from the possession of the appellant from his house. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of D.S.Mishra who duly prove the seÁure of weapon used by the appellant in the offence. 12. Investigation Officer D.S.Mishra (PW11) seÁed blood stained tangiya and blood stained shirt from the possession of the appellant from his house. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of D.S.Mishra who duly prove the seÁure of weapon used by the appellant in the offence. 12. Even though, there is no FSL report in favour of the prosecution but looking to the inocular testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by direct evidence, medical evidence and seÁure memo, we do not find any weakness in the prosecution case which creates reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant. 13. In our opinion, the appellant caused death of the deceased intentionally. He came prepared on the spot armed with a weapon tangiya. He inflicted two blows on the vital organs of the deceased. Earlier, appellant had threatened to kill the deceased and teach him a lesson as appellant’s wife was staying at his house with his family since a month. For the aforesaid reason, appellant’s case is clearly covered under the definition of murder as defined under section 300 of IPC and does not fall under section 304 Part II of IPC as, as argued therefore, the arguments of the appellant is hereby repelled. 14. In view of the evidence on record as discussed above, in our considered opinion, the trial Court after considering the evidence available on record, rightly held the appellant guilty for committing offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rightly awarded the sentence. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. 15. Copy of this judgment along with its record be sent to the Court below for information and compliance.