Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupat Singh & Anr. vs The State Of M.P. on 13 September, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271
1 CRA-773-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 773 of 1998
BHUPAT SINGH & ANR. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Pramesh Jain - Advocate for appellants.
Shri A. N. Gupta - Government Advocate for State.
Reserved on : 02.09.2024
Pronounced on : 13.09.2024
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on
for pronouncement on this day, Justice Devnarayan Mishra pronounced the
following:
JUDGEMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.1998 in S.T. No.19/1996 by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur whereby the both appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for further one year (each).
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, before the trial Court was that on 11.06.1995 at about 3:00-4:00 PM, Hemlata and Preeti (PW-8) went to Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 2 CRA-773-1998 answer the call of nature and to provide the water to pet animals towards their field. Omkar Singh (PW-3) had gone to Patan and on the field Jitendra Singh (deceased) was alone. When Hemlata and Preeti reached near the Tapra constructed over the field, they saw that two persons were running towards the road from their Tapra side and one of them was wearing lungi and kameej and another one was wearing lungi and kurta. Kurta and kameej were of the white colour and lungi of one person was of blue square and another's was red colour. When Hemlata and Preeti reached on Tapra they found that the door was opened and deceased Jitendra Singh was lying dead, his throat was silted, on that both of them returned to Village by crying and narrated the incident to the family members including complainant Laakhan Singh (PW-2) and when they reached on the spot, deceased was found dead and blood was spread over the floor of the Tapra and a farsha was lying on the spot. After that Laakhan Singh (PW-2) came to Patan and searched the father of deceased Omkar Singh (PW-3) and narrated the whole story and doubting the implication of Bhupat and Laxman, lodged the FIR in Police Station- Patan on 11.06.1995 at about 19:00 hour, on that Police registered the Crime No.144/1995 under Section 302 of the IPC. During the investigation, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the postmortem.
3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan where after committal, the case was sent to Court of Sessions and after transfer, the case was submitted before the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC. Appellants denied their implications, abjured guilt and prayed for trial.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 3 CRA-773-1998
4. The Trial Court recorded the prosecution evidence and examined the accused persons and recorded the statements of defence witnesses and by which the trial Court acquitted one of the co-accused Dhaniram and convicted the present appellants as stated in para-1 of the case.
5. Shri Pramesh Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants as from the FIR (Ex.P-7), it is clear that there was no eye-witness and firstly Hemlata and Preeti (PW-8) saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the field and Laakhan Singh (PW-2) in FIR, himself has stated that he was informed by Hemlata and Preeti (PW-8) and after that he came to the spot. Deceased father Omkar Singh (PW-3) was in Patan, he was also not present on the occasion. Nawab Singh (PW-4) who was not an eye witness and he was only the witness of memorandum, seizure and arrest (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5) and Police has not recorded his statement during the investigation but before the Court he tried to substitute himself as an eye- witness. Witness Ku. Preeti (PW-8) has also improved in her Court statement. As per the FSL report, no blood group of the deceased was found in the articles as recovered from the appellants, thus, the conviction recorded by the trial Court is without any evidence and cannot be sustained, hence, appellants be acquitted.
6. Shri A.N. Gupta, learned counsel for State has submitted that there is ample evidence on record. There was a previous enmity between the parties and as per Ex.P-12, the FIR (Ex.P-7) was lodged before the Police Station - Patan by the complainant party against the appellants on the ground Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 4 CRA-773-1998 that the appellants have stolen their pet dog and bull report was lodged in Police and to take revenge of that they have committed the offence and prosecution witnesses have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt before the Court, hence, no interference is called for.
7. We have gone through the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. On the point of death to be homicidal in nature, the prosecution has examined Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW-7) who has stated that on 12.06.1995, he conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and has found the injuries which is mentioned as under:-
A. 4 injuries in the area of the neck (from middle part to 6th cervical bone) and that were caused by the sharp cutting object.
B. Neck was cut measuring 6x3x2 inch. Suprasternal notch measuring 4x3x1 inch was cut.
C. Incised wound above the sternum bone (middle of chest). D. Incised wound on the right shoulder measuring 2.5x1.5x1/2 inch. E. Incised would over the left deltoid region measuring 4x4x1/2 inch. F. Incised wound over the upper left hand measuring 4x2x2 inch. G. Incised wound below the left elbow measuring 2x1.5x1/2 inch. H. Incised wound below the same injury measuring 1x1/2x1/2 inch I. Incised wound over the middle left forearm measuring 1x1/4x1/4 inch and doctor has opined that these injuries were caused by the heavy and sharp weapon and deceased died due to hemorrhage.
9. On 29.08.1995, the farsha was produced by the constable of Police Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 5 CRA-773-1998 Station-Patan and after measuring, doctor has opined that the injuries suffered by the victim may be caused by this weapon. Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW-7), it is clear that the deceased was assaulted in the neck and nearby areas and as a result he died due injuries in the vital part and excess bleeding.
10. On the point of involvement of appellants, Ku. Preeti (PW-8) has stated that her brother Jitendra (deceased) went to field after watching Chandrakanta serial and she went to the field along with her uncle Nawab Singh (PW-4) where she heard the noise of Khat Khat and she saw from the window of the Tapra and she found that accused persons namely Dhaniram with farsha, Bhupat with axe were assaulting and Laxman was caught hold her brother Jitendra. Nawab Singh (PW-4) made an alarm for help then the appellants and co-accused person ran away from the spot. His uncle sent her to inform the family members and when her father returned from the Patan, she narrated the whole story to her father.
11. When this witness was contradicted from her case diary statement (Ex.D-3), it is clear that she has totally changed the version before the Court contrary to the statement recorded before the Police and this witness was contradicted as per Section 145 of the Evidence Act and when previous statement was brought her knowledge and further more, the Investigating Officer A.S. Chouhan (PW-10) who recorded the statement of this witness, was cross-examined on this fact, who in para-14 has clearly stated that the witness Ku. Preeti (PW-8) has not told him that she went along with Nawab Singh (PW-4) on the field carrying the lunch and heard the noise of Khat Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 6 CRA-773-1998 Khat and saw that the accused persons were assaulting her brother by farsha and axe and Laxman caught hold her brother and Nawab Singh (PW-4) called her to go and inform the family members, thus from the Ex.D-3 that is previous statement of this witness, she has completely changed and improved her version that cannot be believed.
12. In the same way Laakhan Singh (PW-2) has stated that when Preeti (PW-8) reached on the spot, she made a noise and on that time he was sleeping his Tapra and on hearing the noise, he came out and saw that the appellants and co-accused were running from the spot and deceased Jitendra was found injured, whereas in the report Ex.P-7, he has clearly stated that when Preeti (PW-8) and Hemlata return to home and informed him, he reached on the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased and then after informing the father of the deceased, lodged the FIR.
13. This witness was contradicted from his police report and previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-10) and on the same point Investigating Officer (PW-10) has clearly stated that this witness has not stated him that on the date of incident at about 12 P.M., Nawab Sinng (PW-4) called and on that he reached on the spot and saw that the accused persons were running on the spot. Thus, this witness has also improved his version.
14. Omkar Singh (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident, the deceased was in the Tapra of the field and this witness has stated that when he was returning from the Patan, he saw that the accused persons were cleaning the blood near the bushes of Besharam and when he came into Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 7 CRA-773-1998 knowledge that his son Jitendra was murdered, he came to the fact that his son was murdered by these persons. This witness has also stated that the appellants have stolen his pet dog and bull and he has filed a report (Ex.P-12) and on that they were having enmity. This witness was also cross-examined from the previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer (Ex.D-2) which has been proved by the Investigating Officer A.S. Chouhan (PW-10), particularly in para-11 of the statement of this witness, thus this witness was not the eye-witness but tried to show that just after the incident, he returned whereas when the incident has happened, he was in Patan and Laakhan Singh (PW-2) had informed him and on that he came to know that his son was murdered.
15. In the same way, Nawab Singh (PW-4) who was only witness of search and seizure has stated that on the date of incident he was going toward his field along with Preeti (PW-8) and he saw from the window of Tapra that the accused persons were assaulting the deceased Jitendra. Dhaniram was having a farsha, Bhupat was having an axe and Laxman caught hold the deceased Jitendra and when he challenged them they ran away from the spot. Dhaniram left the farsha there.
16. This witness was cross-examined and this very fact has come on record that Police Officer has not recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and he was not proposed as the eye witness of the incident and Investigating Officer (PW-10) has clearly admitted in para-18 that Nawab Singh (PW-4) was not the eye-witness of the incident and he has also clearly denied that he recorded the statement of Nawab Singh (PW-4) and after that Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 8 CRA-773-1998 torn and thrown away. Witness Nawab Singh (PW-4) was also cross- examined on the point that if the Police Officer had not recorded his statement, had he complained to the Senior Officers of the Department, he had clearly stated that he was regularly coming to Jabalpur but he has not filed any complaint against the Investigating Officer.
17. On the point of the recovery as stated by the Investigating Officer (PW-10) that from the possession of Bhupat, lungi and kurta and from the possession of Laxman gamchha and kameej were recovered and from the spot farsha was recovered and these were sent for FSL examination. FSL report vide Ex.P-16, the blood was found on soil recovered from the spot, pillow , farsha, cloths of the deceased, kameej of Lxman, but no blood stain was found in gamchha and lungi of Laxman and Bhupat. Furthermore, from the Serology Report, due to insufficiency of the blood and being disintegrated the blood groups found on the cloths and farsha were not matched and it was not clearly opined that the blood of the deceased was found over the cloths of the appellants.
18. Hence, from the oral as well as documentary evidence, there is no material on which the conviction of the appellants has been based. Trial Court has committed the error by convicting the appellants.
19. Thus, this appeal is allowed and conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC is quashed. They are acquitted from all the charges and sentence imposed by the trial Court is quashed. The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants be returned to them.
20. The bail bonds of the appellants are discharged.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH Signing time: 13-09-2024 18:41:04NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46271 9 CRA-773-1998
21. The order of the Trial Court regarding the case property is maintained.
22. With the copy of the judgment, the record of the trial Court be returned back.
23. Record of this appeal be consigned to record room.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DPS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DHEERAJ
PRATAP SINGH
Signing time: 13-09-2024
18:41:04