Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chhati & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 17 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892
1 CRA-300-1998
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. 300 of 1998
CHHATI & ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A. N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Reserved on : 25.09.2024
Pronounced on : 17.10.2024
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra This appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.01.1998 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in S.T. No.221/1989, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each with default stipulations.
2. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 2 CRA-300-1998 05.03.1988 in front of the house of Sunnu Verman in village Khirhani, Police Station-Bargi, the appellants started quarreling with the deceased due to previous quarrel regarding the worship of Kuldevta, that happened a day prior to the incident. The appellants bearing 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi' reached there and started assaulting Himmat. Dabbal (PW-1), Tijiya Bai (PW-2), Andhuru Bai (PW-4), Santoshi (PW-5) and Sadu Verman (PW-8) intervened in the matter. They were also assaulted with ' Farsha'. FIR was lodged in Police Station-Bargi, that was registered as crime no.56/88 under Sections 324, 294, 506-B, 307/34 of IPC. The injured were sent for medical examination and treatment. During treatment, deceased Himmat died on 07.03.1988. Autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased was conducted. The appellants were arrested. The 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi' were recovered from their possession and sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
3. Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302/34 and 324 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. The Trial Court recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and examined the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellants examined Katti (DW-1) as a prosecution witness and took defence that the appellants were invited in Katti's home and when they were preparing to take food. Sadu, Santoshi, Himmat, Dabbal armed with 'Farsha' and Santoshi with 'Lathi' started beating the appellants and they also lodged the report.
4. The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 3 CRA-300-1998 judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. During pendency of this appeal, the appellant Babulal @ Laxman expired. Hence, this judgment is passed in relation to three appellants Chhati, Dhulla @ Mangal and Nanhe son of Sarupa Verman.
6. Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the cross case was registered. The appellants also got injuries in this incident but the prosecution failed to explain in what circumstances the injuries were caused. He further argued that there are material contradiction and omission in the prosecution case. Tijiya Bai (PW-3) had not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution also failed to demonstrate that the appellants were aggressor. In that circumstances, the judgment of the Trial Court cannot be upheld.
7. Shri A.N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the state submits that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and the prosecution case is supported by the medical evidence and independent witnesses. The eye-witnesses were also got injuries in the incident. Hence, their presence on the spot is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Injuries themselves speak that the sharp edged weapons were used and the deceased was murdered by assaulting 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi'. Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
8. We have carefully perused the record.
9. First of all, the statements of Doctor S.N. Gupta (PW-12) are Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 4 CRA-300-1998 material. This witness stated that on 05.03.1988, he was posted as an Assistant Surgeon Orthopaedic in Medical College, Jabalpur. On that day, Dabbal s/o Buddhu r/o Khirhani Ghat was brought by Police Constable Vedehisharan no.1264 of P.S. Bargi at 11:30 pm. He found stab injury on the left buttock measuring 2.5×2x1 cm, an incised wound measuring 5×10×1 cm on the left forearm and multiple abrasions on other parts of the body. Doctor proved MLC Report (Ex.P-22) and opined that injuries number 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon. On the same day at 12:30 pm, he examined Sadu s/o Buddhu. On examination, he found that he was having 4 incised wounds on the occipital region and an incised wound measuring 3x0.5x0.5 cm on the forearm and the linear abrasion on the right forearm. He exhibited the MLC Report (Ex.P-23). On the same day, he also examined Santoshi daughter of Buddhu and found a chap wound on the left forearm.
10. On the same day, he examined Himmat Singh s/o Halke aged about 35 years. He found an incised wound measuring 4×2×1 cm on the front side of left leg, an incised wound measuring 3x1x1 cm on the left forearm, an incised wound measuring 3×1×2x1/2 cm on left buttock. The patient was admitted in the hospital. The injuries were caused within six hours and he exhibited MLC Report (Ex.P-35).
11. This witness also stated that he examined Andhrubai wife of Buddhu and found two abrasion injuries on left hand and left forearm and a contusion on the right shoulder. He exhibited the MLC Report (Ex.P-26). This witness further stated that on query, he replied that the injuries suffered by Sadu were caused by sharp edged weapon and if timely treatment was not Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 5 CRA-300-1998 provided to him, the injuries may cause the death. The same opinion was regarding the injury to Dabbal. The injuries caused to Santoshi were also caused by sharp edged weapon.
12. Thus, it is clear that in the incident of Dabbal, Sadu, Santoshi, Andhrubai got injuries and except the Andhrubai injuries to the others were caused by sharp edged weapon.
13. Dr S.L. Mukherjee (PW-11) had stated that on 05.03.1988, he examined Himmat Singh s/o Halke, who was in the critical situation and unconscious. On examination, he found that his left hand was completely cut, only skin was present. 2/3rd portion of the hand was cut and it was connected only by the skin. The middle of left leg was cut by 2/3rd, muscles were cut. Only 1/3r d leg was connected with the tissues. There was an incised wound on the left scapula region. They tried to save the patient but on 07.03.1988, the deceased died due to injuries. Dr. S.N. Gupta (PW-12) proved the Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-30).
14. Thus, it is clear that the deceased Himmat died due to the injuries suffered on 05.03.1988 in the incident and died on 07.03.1988. Thus, it is clear that on the date of incident i.e. 05.03.1988, the deceased and the witnesses Dabbal, Santoshi, Sadu and Andhrubai suffered the injuries which were caused by sharp edged weapons and the deceased died due to these injuries. Now, the question arises who caused the injuries to the deceased and other injured persons.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 6 CRA-300-1998
15. In this case, from the cross-examination of the witnesses, the witness and some of the appellants are not of the same village. It is clear that the witnesses and the appellants were acquainted with each other.
16. On the point of incident, Dabbal (PW-1) stated that the appellants are of their village. He also knows the deceased. The incident is of third day of Holi festival. On the next day of Holi, worship was performed by the family members of the deceased. The appellants did not reach in time in the house of Himmat where worship was to be performed. Hence, Himmat Singh sacrificed three piglets. Also on that occasion after sometime, Himmat reached on the spot and asked to Chhati to take Prasad. On that, Chhati started abusing to Himmat and quarrel was started. The quarrel was pacified anyhow. On the next day, Himmat along with Santoshi and this witness were walking. On that, Gullu @ Chhati, Nanhe and Laxman came there with 'Farsha' and started beating Himmat and when he intervened, Chhati and Laxman started assaulting him. Sadu and Santoshi saved him and he ran away from the spot. Accused persons also assaulted Sadu and Santoshi. Four injuries were caused to Himmat. He was admitted in the Victoria Hospital.
17. In the lengthy cross-examination of this witness, some discrepancies and contradictions were found regarding the incident. How the quarrel was started, but on the substantial point that the appellants were present on the spot and started beating Himmat with 'Farsha' remained unrebutted. There are also certain discrepancies in the point that which of the appellants caused injuries in which particular part of the body of this witness Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 7 CRA-300-1998 except that nothing has been brought on record.
18. Tijiya Bai (PW-3) stated that she well acquainted with the appellants. She had denied the prosecution case but admitted that she had lodged the FIR (Ex.P-2) and statement (Ex.P-3) was read over to the witness. She stated that she narrated the same story to the police.
19. Andhru Bai (PW-4) stated that the accused persons assaulted Himmat with 'Farsha' and when she went to save Himmat, the accused persons also assaulted her. She suffered injuries on her head and she was medically examined and Police seized the clothes of the deceased from the hospital. There are certain contradictions regarding starting quarrel, but nothing has been brought on record that the appellants were not present and they had not assaulted the victim. Some discrepancies also came regarding the place of the incident, the incident took place in front of Katti's house or Dabbal's house, but on the material points, nothing has been brought by which it can be inferred that this witness was not present on the spot.
20. Witness Santoshi (PW-5) stated that a day prior to this incident, there was a quarrel on worship. On the date of incident, the appellants armed with 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi' assaulted Himmat. In the detailed cross- examination, nothing substantial has been brought.
21. Sadu (PW-8), who is also the witness, stated that the dispute had taken place between Himmat and Chhati regarding worship and the quarrel was pacified. On the next day of Holi festival at 04:00 pm, accused Dhulla, Nanhe, Babulal and Chhati came to beat the deceased Himmat. His mother Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 8 CRA-300-1998 Andhru Bai (PW-4) intervened but they did not stop the quarrel and Babulal was having 'Kulhadi' (an axe) and rest of the appellants were having ' Farsha' and started hitting Himmat. Himmat got the injuries. Chhati assaulted him with 'Farsha' and Babulal hit him with ' Kulhadi'. They also assaulted Dabbal (PW-1) and Santoshi (PW-5).
22. When this witness was cross-examined and contradicted from Ex.D-4, there are certain discrepancies in the statement but on the substantial point that the accused persons were not present and they had not used 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi' and assaulted Himmat, the statement of this witness is uncontroverted.
23. Thus, in the cross-examiantion of Dabbal (PW-1), Andhuru Bai (PW-4) and Santoshi (PW-5), it has been brought on the record that on the same incident, a criminal case was also registered against the witnesses but the defence had not produced any document that they suffered the injuries and the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellants.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants filed an application under Section 391 of IPC but had not produced the document or MLC report regarding injuries suffered by the appellants. Hence, only on the basis that a criminal case was also registered against injured witnesses. No inference can be drawn that these witnesses were aggressor as stated by Katti (DW-1).
25. Vinod Kumar Shrivastava, Investigating Officer (PW-7) stated that on 05.03.1988, he registered a criminal case (Ex.P-2) on oral FIR by Tijiya Bai. He prepared the spot map and on disclosure of the appellants, recovered Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 9 CRA-300-1998 the 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi'. On 08.03.1988, he registered merg intimation and sent the dead body of the deceased for post mortem and recovered the clothes of the deceased. In para no.18 of the cross-examination, this witness also admitted that on 05.03.1988 at 07:45 pm, the appellant Chhati lodged the FIR and he regsitered crime no.55/1988 under Sections 324 and 506 of the IPC against Dabbal, Sadu and Santoshi and also sent Chhati, Babulal @ Laxman, Nanhe and Dhulla for medical examination and that in case also the spot map was sent where the incident took place.
26. But no document was referred to this witness regarding cross-case and injuries sustained by the appellants.
27. The Investigating Officer also submitted that he sent the seized clothes and weapons to FSL, Sagar for examination i.e. report (Ex.P-32).
28. In this report (Ex.P-32), human blood was found in Baniyan, shirt, blood stained soil, 'Farsha' and 'Kulhadi' recovered from the accused persons and appellants have not explained how the blood came in these articles.
29. Looking to this facts, it is clear that a day prior to the incident, quarrel took place regarding worship as deceased has not waited Chhati to perform worship and sacrificed the piglets. On that point, the quarrel took place. On the next day due to that reason, the accused persons with the common intention caused injuries to deceased and the weapon used in the incident was 'Farsha' that is sharp edged weapon and the weapon was used in a such force only one inference can be drawn that appellants were having Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 10 CRA-300-1998 intention to murder the deceased and also caused injuries to the witnesses Dabbal (PW-1), Andhrubai (PW-4), Santoshi (PW-5) and Sadu (PW-8). Thus, offence of murder and causing injuries to the witness is proved. Only on that basis, the criminal case was also registered and the injuries were found in the body of the appellants. Nature of injuries has not been brought on the record and looking to the number of witnesses who were present on the spot and number of accused persons, if simple injuries were sustained by the appellants, no inference can be drawn against the victim and the witnesses that the deceased, who are the persons accompanying him, were aggressor.
30. Hence, no fault is found in the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and looking to the gravity of the injuries and the weapons used by the victims, the sentence imposed upon the appellants cannot be said to be disproportionate.
31. Thus, the judgment of the conviction and sentence of the appellants imposed by the Trial Court is affirmed. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
32. The appellants are in Jail. The copy of the judgment be sent to the Jail Authorities and to Trial Court for necessary compliance. The appellants shall serve the remaining jail sentence.
33. The case property be disposed of as per the judgment of the Trial Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 17-10-2024 18:18:36NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:51892 11 CRA-300-1998
34. With the copy of the judgment, the record of the Trial Court be sent forthwith for necessary action and compliance.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 17-10-2024
18:18:36