Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramji vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.
Criminal Appeal 1964/2010
Parties Name Ramji
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench Constituted Hon'ble Shri Justice H.P. Singh
&
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev
Kumar Dubey
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice H.P. Singh
Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting
Name of counsel for parties Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, for
the appellant.
Shri A.S. Pathak, learned Govt.
Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Law laid down
Significant paragraph numbers
JUDGMENT
(__.05.2018) Per: H.P. Singh, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.05.2009, against the conviction of accused/appellant in S.T.No.44/2008 (State Vs. Ramji), for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment, with default stipulation.
2: Briefly stated facts of the case in nutshell are that Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) being the neighbour of his maternal uncle deceased Raju Bhumiya, is residing with his mother Smt. Juganti Bai (PW/16) and niece Meera Bai (PW/5). Prior to the incident, there was a dispute between the appellant and his wife Meera Bai (PW/5) and for this reason, 2 she started living with her maternal uncle Raju Bhumiya (deceased), son Banti and Juganti Bai (PW/16). On the fateful day i.e. 13.12.2007, at about 4:30 PM, when Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) was at his home, then his maternal uncle Raju Bhumiya told him that Meera Bai (PW/5), wife of appellant, along with his mother Juganti Bai and minor son Banti went to the forest to pick up wooden stick. When they were passing through the forest area, on the way, appellant-Ramji Bhumiya met them and snatched minor child Banti from Juganti Bai (PW/16). Thereafter, Meera Bai (PW/5) told about the incident to Raju Bhumiya and said that appellant-Ramji Bhumiya had snatched her son Banti and asked him to bring her son back. Thereafter, after some time, Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) rushed towards his house and told that Raju went to the house of appellant Ramji to take back Banti, where Ramji was cutting wooden pole, mother of Ramji, namely, Munnibai was standing on the Medh of agricultural field with Banti on her lap. Thereafter, Raju had demanded Banti, but mother of appellant denied the same and during scuffle, appellant had assaulted Raju by the means of Tangiya (Axe) and caused grievous injuries on his head, due to that, he fell down near Medh of agricultural field. Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) rushed towards his house and narrated the incident to Jugantibai and his brother Joga, who went to the house of brother of Raju, Devraj at Village Barnamahgawan. Thereafter, said Devraj, Keshavgiri, Uttamgiri, Tirath Tiwari came on the spot and saw that Raju had died.
3: Further story of prosecution is that soon after the incident, Uttamgiri has informed the matter to I.M. Dwivedi (PW/11) on cell-phone that Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) and 3 Devraj Bhumiya (PW/1) had told him that Ramji Bhumiya had assaulted the deceased-Raju Bhumiya on his head by Tangiya (Axe), and he is died. On that basis, Marg was registered and after completing the investigation, Crime No.323/2007 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. During investigation, spot map Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/7 were prepared in presence of witnesses. Plain and blood stained soils were seized from the spot vide Ex.P/3 and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Pramod Malviya (PW/6), who gave his report vide Ex.P/9. Thereafter, during investigation, accused/ appellant was arrested and Challan was filed before concerned Magistrate. The seized articles were also sent to FSL Sagar for chemical examination and a report was received from FSL Sagar vide Ex.P/24. After committal of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the appellant and evidence were recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court after recording and marshaling of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as above.
4: Assailing the judgment of conviction dated 4.5.2009 delivered by Court below, this appeal has been preferred by appellant.
5: Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, there are material contradiction and omissions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses. In fact, the prosecution has failed to produce the substantive and reliable evidence against the appellant. He further submits that without properly 4 appreciating the prosecution witnesses and material evidence available on record trial Court, has wrongly convicted the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offence. On these grounds he prays for acquittal of the appellant from the aforesaid charge.
6: Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has submitted that there is enough evidence to hold guilty the accused/appellant for commission of above mentioned offence. There are sufficient material evidence against the accused/appellant, therefore, the trial Court after appreciating the material evidence available on record convicted the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offence. It is further submitted by learned Govt. Advocate that there is ample and substantial evidence against the appellant for his involvement in the alleged crime and learned trial Court committed no error in appreciating the material evidence available on record in its true perspective and holding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence. On these grounds he prays that the judgment of learned trial Court be affirmed.
7: Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record including statements of all prosecution witnesses, who had been examined by the prosecution.
8: Learned trial Court has examined as many as ten prosecution witnesses, namely, Devraj Patel (PW/1), Bhole (PW/2), Madari (PW/3), Joga(PW/4), Smt. Meera Bai(PW/5), Dr. Pramod Malviya (PW/6), Samarjeet 5 Singh(PW/7), Indrika Prasad Dwivedi (PW/8), Ganga Prasad Verma (PW/9), S.C. Mishra (PW/10), ASI I.M. Dwivedi (PW/11), Patwari Chandan Asati (PW/12), Sub Inspector M.P. Pauranik (PW/13), Uttam Giri (PW/14), Keshav Giri Goswami (PW/15) and Smt. Juganti Bai (PW/16).
9: So far death and nature of death of deceased Raju is concerned, from the statement of Bhole (PW/2), who is claimed to be an eye witness of the incident, duly supported by the statements of Devraj Patel (PW/1) and Joga (PW/4) & Smt. Juganti Bai (PW/16) and available other evidences, it is proved beyond doubt that deceased had died on account of the injuries assaulted by appellant by means of Tangiya (Axe).
10 : Now the question for consideration is whether the death of deceased was caused by the appellant and accordingly, he had committed the murder of deceased Raju? To prove this fact that accused/appellant has committed murder of deceased by a hard and blunt object Tangiya (Axe) and caused grievous injuries to him, prosecution has examined two witnesses as eye witnesses Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2).
11 : From perusal of statements of above eye witness Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) who claimed to be an eye witness, Meerabai (PW/5), Dr. Pramod Malviya (PW/6) and statement of mother of deceased, Smt. Jugantibai (PW/16), it is clear that accused/appellant, by giving blow of Tangiya (Axe), caused grievous injuries on the head of deceased, as a result of which, he fell down in the Medh of 6 agricultural field.
12 : Seizure of blood stained Tangiya (Axe), hair of appellant, shirt of the appellant, blood stained soil from the spot have been proved. During Court evidence, production of said articles have also been proved. Perusal of FSL report, reflects that including other articles, Tangiya (Axe) marked as A1, hair marked as A2, shirt marked as B, and blood stained soil marked as C1, were sent for examination and the same were examined. As mentioned above, the prosecution has also proved that said incriminating articles have been seized.
13 : Thus, looking to the marshaling of evidence of prosecution witnesses including eye witness account, to prove seizure of Tangiya (Axe) from the possession of appellant and the fact that seized other incriminating articles, which were said to be seized in this case and accordingly, the statement of witness Bhole Bhuriya (PW/2) who claimed himself as eye witnesses, are fully supported by the scientific evidence, which are said to be collected by the prosecution.
14 : In the aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has considered the entire material evidence against accused/appellant on record in its entirety and on proper appreciation of evidence, after assigning detailed and cogent reasons, has convicted the accused/appellant.
15: The accused/appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he has taken defence that he 7 has been falsely implicated.
16 : Dr. Pramod Malviya (PW/6) has conducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased and found gutter (pond) fracture circular measuring 5" x 4" and in continuity of injuries measuring 6" x 2" x skin deep x bone deep, and, brain matter was seen, on right parietal region; on left occipital behind ear he found sharp cut 6" x skin deep wound. No scalp fracture and right first rib fracture. It is opined by Dr. Pramod Malviya that death is due to brain and head injuries implicated through hard object, death was homicidal in nature and duration was less than 24 hours from the time of postmortem.
17 : I have carefully gone through the evidence available on record and the impugned judgment convicting the appellant. No doubt, it is apparently clear from the injuries on the person of deceased that the death of deceased has been caused by the appellant by hard and blunt object, Tangiya (Axe); on marshalling the evidence of Bhole Bhumiya (PW/2) who claimed to be an eye witness, Meerabai (PW/5), it is gathered that appellant has caused the injuries to deceased Raju. These witnesses are consistent in their version. In fact, their version have been duly supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Pramod Malviya (PW/6), who found that those injuries could has been caused by hard and blunt object. Accordingly, it is proved that appellant has committed the murder of deceased. Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding appellant guilty and sentencing him for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
818 : On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant killed deceased Ramavtar, there is no reason to accept the appeal filed by the appellant. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. So far as sentence is concerned for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, which is the minimum, therefore, there is no need to discuss any more on the question of sentence.
19 : For the reasons stated herein above, we uphold the conviction of the appellant. In the result, we find that the present appeal sans merit. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(H.P. SINGH) (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
A.Praj.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2018.05.18 06:34:25
-07'00'