Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Tilak Singh on 19 June, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.7474/2010
19.06.2014
As per : N.K. Gupta, J.
Shri S.K. Kashyap, Government Advocate for the applicant/State.
Heard on admission.
The applicant/State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 28.4.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Special Act') in Special Case No.25/2008, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34, 435/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the aforesaid Special Act.
The prosecution's case in short is that on 2.12.2007 Badri Prasad (PW-1) had lodged an FIR that his brother Jagdish and his servant Koora Ahirwar went on the previous night to irrigate their field but in the morning, they did not come back. When Satyanarayan went to look for the deceased then, he found that entire hut was set on fire and Jagdish and Koora were missing. Thereafter, ASI R.P. Dubey (PW-11) went to the spot, he found that dead body of the deceased Jagdish and Koora were buried in the field. Thereafter, the investigation took place and it was found that the respondents committed a crime and therefore, the charge sheet was also filed. After considering the submissions made by learned Government Advocate and the evidence adduced before the trial Court is considered then, it would be apparent that there is no ocular evidence against the respondents. However, the prosecution tried to establish some circumstances against the respondents, which are as under:-
(1) that the respondents had motive to kill the deceased Jagdish. In that respect, Sunita (PW-3) and Kaptan Singh (PW-6) have stated that 4-5 days prior to the incident, Jagdish won a huge amount in the gambling and the respondent Sattu @ Satyanarayan, Gopilal and Balram threatened the deceased for that account.
However, Sunita has stated that when her husband won the amount in gambling, it was Kaptan Singh (PW-6), who gave the threat. Under such circumstances, the testimony if the witness Kaptan Singh cannot be relied upon and therefore, there was no motive proved against the respondent Balram, Gopi and Sattu to kill the deceased Jagdish.
(2) It is stated by Sunita (PW-3) that Tilak was in habit to consume the liquor started uttering of abused in the locality and when the deceased Jagdish prohibited him, he gave a threat to kill him. However, looking to such an incident, where such a threat was given by Tilak in a drunken stage, it cannot be said that he had a motive to kill the deceased Jagdish.
(3) Madan (PW-4) has stated that he was field neighbour of the deceased Jagdish. When he was going to his field, 1000 ft. away from the field of Jagdish, he heard some shouting done by Tilak Singh and thereafter, he met with Gopi, Sattu and Balram, who stated that they were coming from the field of Jagdish. However, in the cross- examination, he has accepted that he resided in his field for the entire night for irrigation but he could not see the hut of the deceased Jagdish, which was set on fire by the culprits.
(4) Sunita has stated that in the entire night, Jagdish was at his house and thereafter, due to instigation of Sattu, he went to his field. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Madan cannot be accepted that he saw the respondents with the deceased Jagdish soon before the incident and therefore, the factum of last seen could not be established in the evidence of the witness Madan.
(5) Sunita has also stated that Sattu came to their house, where he requested Jagdish to go his field so that Sattu could be dropped to a particular place in the early morning and thereafter, Jagdish went with Sattu and Tilak to the field. However, in Roznamchasanah Ex.P/25-C, it was informed that Jagdish went to his field for irrigation in the late night alongwith his servant Koora and both were missing. Under such circumstances, looking to the material contradiction, Sunita could not establish the factum of last seen of the respondents with the deceased Jagdish.
(6) the police had seized spade, shirt, axe etc. from the accused Tilak. However, it was established in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory that blood group of the deceased Koora was 'A' but the blood group of blood stains found on the spade article 'N', shirt article 'O' and the axe article 'L' were not sufficient to determine the blood group. When the entire case depends upon the availability of blood stains on the weapon or clothing then, it is a settled view of the Hon'ble Apex Court that blood group should be ascertained otherwise by simple human blood stains alone, the accused person cannot be convicted.
On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the chain of circumstantial evidence was broken. There was no cogent evidence to convict the respondents from the charges framed against them in the present case. There is no reason to make any interference in the judgment passed by the trial Court in the present appeal. If leave is granted then, the appeal filed by the State cannot succeed. Consequently, the present leave application is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information alongwith its record.
(Ajit Singh) (N.K. Gupta)
Judge Judge
pnkj