Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 141 (MP)

Jeevan Singh v. State Of M. P.

2020-01-25

S.K.AWASTHI, VIRENDER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C against judgment and order dated 30.4.2007 passed in S.T. No.189/2006 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow District Indore; whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and has awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation (RI of 2 years) for causing death of his wife BhoolaBai. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant was residing at Village Rau along with wife deceased Bhoolabai, son Sanjay and three daughters. On 21.3.2006, he along with his wife and children had gone to see his mother Thagubai, who was residing alone in village Chapariya. To look after Thagubai, her grand daughter Krishna (daughter of daughter) use to sleep with he grandma (Thagubai). The deceased use to call her husband (appellant) in the name of their son Sanjay and use to call her mother-in-law as 'Jiji'. On 21.3.2006, before arrival of Jeevan Singh and his family, Thagubai and Krishna had finished their dinner Therefore, Bhoolabai cooked food and asked her son Sanjay to call his father Jeevan to have food. Sanjay called his father, but he kicked him and also started beating Bhoolabai. He suddenly took out leg of cot (Khatiya ka paya) and gave a blow on her temple region. She screamed. On hearing her screams, neighbour Ratan bai rushed and tried to rescue her, but the appellant pushed her, therefore, she left the place At that time, Jeevan also throttled her till death. The appellant left the place along with his son Sanjay and had gone to Nahragodha by foot. He asked his son not to reveal the incident to anyone. 3. In the next morning, Thagubai noticed the dead body of Bhoolabai. She asked Krishna to intimate father of the deceased Sakharam. Krishna also saw the dead body and called and intimated Sakharam in village Nandgao about the incident. Sakharam asked his brother Shriram to go and see as to what had happened. Shriram came to village Chapariya, saw the deceased and intimated to the Police. Merg Ex.P/3 and thereafter FIR Ex.P/2 bearing crime No.94/2006 were registered at the police station. 4. Sub Inspector, Indramani Patel, investigated the case. Sakharam asked his brother Shriram to go and see as to what had happened. Shriram came to village Chapariya, saw the deceased and intimated to the Police. Merg Ex.P/3 and thereafter FIR Ex.P/2 bearing crime No.94/2006 were registered at the police station. 4. Sub Inspector, Indramani Patel, investigated the case. He called the witnesses, prepared memo of corpse Ex.P/4 & 5, sent the dead body for post-mortem and obtained report Ex.P/15, visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex.P/8, seized blood smudged soil, plain soil, Khatiya ka Paya vide seizure memo Ex.P/11, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.P/9, seized his shirt and pant vide seizure memo EX.P/10, sent all the seized articles to FSL vide letter Ex.P/18, got 5 photographs of the spot Ex.P/19 to P/23 clicked, recorded statements of the witnesses and filed charge sheet after completing the investigation. 5. The accused is charged, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated above in para 1. 6. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record. The trial Court has recorded the conviction without properly appreciating the evidence on record and material omissions, contradictions and anomalies present in the prosecution evidence have been overlooked. The learned trial Court erred in relying on the contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses, who are otherwise relatives of the deceased and finds no corroboration from any independent witness. The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, the Trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant for the same. The Trial Court further erred in not considering the fact that there was no motive, intention or knowledge of the appellant to cause death. The incident happened all of a sudden. It was a petty domestic dispute between husband and wife. There was no intention, preparation or premeditation in commission of the crime. Out of a fit of rage, he beat his wife. Otherwise, nothing was there. They all were leading a peaceful life with all four children. Nothing shows that they were having some discords prior to the incident during their long married life. The appellant never intended to cause death, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 is not sustainable. Out of a fit of rage, he beat his wife. Otherwise, nothing was there. They all were leading a peaceful life with all four children. Nothing shows that they were having some discords prior to the incident during their long married life. The appellant never intended to cause death, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 is not sustainable. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal 7. Learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Trial Court and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. The appellant has not challenged the death of the deceased on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, the injuries observed and mentioned by the doctor in the post-mortem report Ex.P/15, the fact that her death was caused due to those injuries and that the death was homicidal in nature, therefore, we need not to discuss all these issues in detail. 9. Prosecution witnesses Ratna Bai PW-2, mother and niece of the appellant Thagubai PW-3 and Krishna PW- 14 have turned hostile, but seven year old son of the appellant Sanjay PW-4 has supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated before the trial Court that his father had killed his mother. He has further supported the case of the prosecution stating that on the date of the incident it was night. His mother cooked food and asked him to call his father. His father caught his mother by hair & struck cot's leg ( Khatiye ka Paya ) on her head. He again caught her, trampled her and ultimately throttled her. Then he wore shirt, smoked & took him (Sanjay) with him to Faliya, thereafter to Nahra Godhra and slept there in the night. In the morning, he left Sanjay and asked him to go home and he himself went towards Manpur. Veracity of this child witness has been tested in lengthy cross examination, but he remain intact to his statement. There is nothing on record to doubt on the statement of this innocent child 10. According to the prosecution case, daughter of sister of the appellant Krishna bai PW-14 informed father of the deceased Sakharam PW-5. He asked his brother Shriram PW-1 to go and see as to what has happened. There is nothing on record to doubt on the statement of this innocent child 10. According to the prosecution case, daughter of sister of the appellant Krishna bai PW-14 informed father of the deceased Sakharam PW-5. He asked his brother Shriram PW-1 to go and see as to what has happened. Both Sakharam PW-5 and Shriram PW-1 have supported the case of the prosecution before the trial Court. Shriram PW-1 has further stated that he went to the place of the incident saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a blood of pool in the house of the appellant. He lodged FIR Ex P/2. Sub Inspector Indramani Patel PW-15 has stated that FIR No.94/2006 under Section 302 of IPC was registered on the instigation of Shriram PW-1. Sub Inspector Indramani Patel PW-15 has further stated that after registering the crime, he visited the spot, called the witnesses, prepared spot map, sent the body for post-mortem, prepared Panchnama lash , seized blood smeared and plain soil from the spot and a leg of cot 'charpai ka paya' made by teak wood, arrested the accused, seized his blood stained shirt and pants, sent all the seized articles to the FSL. Veracity of the statement of both these witnesses could not be shattered even after cross examination. These statements are well supported by the documents 'Merg' Ex-P-1, FIR Ex-P-2, notice Ex-P-4, Panchnamalash Ex P-5, spot map/crime detail form Ex- P-8, arrest memo Ex-P-9 and seizure memos Exs P-10, 11 and P-12. There is nothing on record to disbelieve all this evidences oral as well as documentary. 11 . The trial Court has appreciated all this evidence in the impugned judgment and has concluded that all this evidence is strong, firm, reliable and trustworthy. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court, we also do not find any reason to discard or disbelieve all this evidence. 12. The judgment of the trial Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference; neither on conviction nor on the part of sentence. 13. The appeal preferred by the appellant is sans-merit and is dismissed accordingly. 14. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.