Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Rai @ Sanjay Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 13 August, 2018
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava, Rohit Arya
1 Cr. Appeal No.1170/2008
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Cr. Appeal No.1170 of 2008
Sachin Rai alias Sanjay Sharma alias Amit Verma
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
CORAM
Hon'ble Justice Prakash Shrivastava
&
Hon'ble Justice Rohit Arya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajesh Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Reserved on: 04/08/2018
JUDGMENT
(13/08/2018) Per Rohit Arya, J., This appeal by an accused under section 374 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/08/2008 passed in sessions trial No.216/2001 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and under section 450 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story, in brief is that on 18/01/2000 the complainant Abhay Nafade (P.W.10) about 07.45 pm lodged Dehati Nalish (exhibit P/12) at Police Station Khajarana, Indore to the effect that he is working on the post of Cashier with the State Bank of India posted at Branch Old Palasiya. The working hours of the Branch on the said date are from 02.00 pm to 08.00 pm and he left home to the Bank to discharge his duties leaving his wife, Pratiba (since dead) and daughter Ayushi at home. Around 7.00 pm he has received a phone from his neighbour Shrikant 2 Cr. Appeal No.1170/2008 (P.W.1) that his wife received injuries by a knife. On receiving such information, he reached home. He saw that Pratiba was lying dead between the bed room and hall in a pool of blood. He enquired from his daughter, Ayushi whereupon she informed that about 6.00 pm, one person had knocked the door with high pitch of sound. Her mother opened the door. The assailant entered in the house and attacked her mother with a knife. After killing her father, he fled away towards the nearby petrol pump. She has described the physique etc., of the person entered in the house which was registered at crime No.0/2000. Thereafter, the FIR was registered at crime No.18/2000 at the Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 452 and 302 IPC.
During investigation, Rajmal Sharma, the Investigating Officer (P.W.14) has prepared the Naksha Panchayatnama (exhibit P/1), he has also seized various articles lying near the dead body and prepared seizure memo vide exhibit P/2, viz., yellow colour knife, a piece of saw, a five rupee note from the wash basin, a 5 rupee note near the gate, two pieces of pencil, long hair of female, short hair of male, one chain of jip, blood taken from the floor kept in a plastic bottle and a sole of shoe of right leg marked as "B". He has recorded the statements of , Shrikant (P.W.1), Ayushi (P.W.9) & Abhay Nafde (P.W.10). The dead body was sent for post mortem. Due to his transfer handed over the case for further investigation to Rajesh Singh Bisen (P.W.16) who has arrested the accused/appellant and prepared the arrest memo (exhibit P/4). On the basis of his statement, recovered an iron piece containing blood stains in the presence of the witnesses vide exhibit P/6. Various other articles used by him in the commission of crime have also been recovered including the shoe without sole, a black hair from his head and sealed it for sending them to the forensic laboratory. FSL report is exhibit P/20. Further investigated by Subashchandra Dubey (P.W.17) who has made a draft of the hair of the accused and sent to FSL, Kolkata and its report is exhibit P/22. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant.
3. Dr. Rajkumar Singh (P.W.11) conducted post mortem (exhibit P/16) has found as many as 42 injuries on various parts 3 Cr. Appeal No.1170/2008 of body of the deceased and opined that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries which were caused with hard and sharp object. Evidence of injuries caused with hard and blunt object also present. Death was homicidal in nature. As such, deceased had suffered death within 24 hours of the post mortem.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/25, the documents on record.
5. The trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Sections 450 and 302 IPC against the accused person. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. The Trial Judge while carefully examining the evidence of eye-witness Ayushi (P.W.9) aged 06 years found that there is consistency in her statement all along as she has vividly described the incident. Further, the evidence of Shrikant (P.W.1), Ramprasad Hartoliya (P.W.3), Vilrendra Tiwari (P.W.5) who has proved his signature from the portion B to B on the panchnama lash and the seizure of articles (exhibit P.2), the complainant Abhay Nafade (P.W.10) supports the version of the eye-witness. On the basis of overwhelming evidence of occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused/appellant, various memorandums including seizure memos and the FSL reports [exhibits P/1 to P/15, P/17, P/18, P/19, P./21, P/23, P/24, P/25 etc.], post mortem report (exhibit P/16) and evidence of Dr. Rajkumar Singh (P.W.11) as well as the FSL reports (exhibit P/20 and P/22 & P/23), the trial Court has concluded that the accused/appellant caused grave injuries resulting into death of the deceased. Accordingly, held that charge under Sections 302 and 450 IPC has been proved against the accused/appellant as a result of which he has been convicted and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove.
4 Cr. Appeal No.1170/20087. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant while criticizing the impugned judgment contends that there is mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and committed grave illegality having relied upon the testimony of the evidence led by cited witnesses including the alleged eye-witness, Ayushi (P.W.9), Shrikant (P.W.1) and the complainant Abhay Nafade (P.W.10) as well as other witnesses. Even otherwise, the appellant has no motive to commit murder of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellant, hence, the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charge.
9. An alternate submission has also been put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant is involved in commission of the crime, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited.
11. In the obtaining facts and circumstances as there is overwhelming testimony of the eye-witness, a child of 06 years Ayushi (P.W.9) who withstood in her cross-examination and the evidence of other witnesses as well as the medical evidence referred to above. Further, the complacency of the accused/appellant conclusively proved by two FSL reports wherein the sole of the shoes and hair seized were found to be that of the accused. The relevant extracts of the reports read as under:
FSL Report of Forensic Laboratory, Sagar (exhibit P/20):
Þizn'kZ ts& ,d lq[krYyk ftldk mijh Hkkx lQsn thUl ds diMs dk gS uhps dk fgLlk uhys jax ds jcj tSls inkFkZ dk gSA bls ?kVukLFky ls tIr crk;k gSA izn'kZ ds& ,d tksMh uhys jax ds ca/k okys twrs ftu ij ikoj LiksVZ QqVoh;j vafdr gSA bu ij 8 ua0 ikoj Hkh 5 Cr. Appeal No.1170/2008 vafdr gSA nkfgus iSj ds twrs esa lq[krYyk ugha gSAbls vkjksih ls tIr crk;k tk jgk gSA vfHker& mi;qZDr ijh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij izn'kZ ts dk lq[krYyk izn'kZ ds ds nkfgus iSj ds twrs ls m[kMk gSAÞ FSL Report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata (exhibits P/22 & P/23):
"Morphological characteristics of Exhibit A (hair sample collected from the head of accused) is consistent with similar Exhibit B (hair sample collected from the scene of crime)."
according to us, the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the deceased had died on account of causing multiple injuries by the appellant with the weapon used by him for commission of the crime.
12. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that no motive has been attributed to the appellant for causing the grave injuries and ultimate death of the deceased appears to be not sustainable. Thus, the argument that the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC is totally misconceived for the reason that it was established on record that the appellant has committed the offence and he has been duly identified by the eye-witness, Ayushi (P.W.9). The said fact has been established from the evidence of Shrikant (P.W.1), the complainant, Abhay Nafde (P.W.10) and other witnesses. The homicidal death of the deceased; a woman of 42 years as per post mortem report having received as many as 42 injuries; an unnatural conduct of the appellant completes the chain of circumstances and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Hence, the argument is rejected, accordingly.
13. We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 450 IPC and we do not find any infirmity in it. The judgment is based on correct appreciation of the evidence based on record and further we do not want to deviate ourselves from the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court. Hence, we extend our stamp of approval of the reasonings, findings, conviction and sentence 6 Cr. Appeal No.1170/2008 recorded and awarded by the Trial Court.
14. Ex consequentia, this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Rohit Arya)
Judge Judge
13-08-2018 13-08-2018
b/-
Digitally signed by M V R
BALAJI SARMA
Date: 2018.08.14 17:55:50
+05'30'