Madhya Pradesh High Court
Samar Jeet Singh & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. & Ors. on 27 August, 2014
Author: N.K.Gupta
Bench: N.K.Gupta
A.F.R.
Judge
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.118/2001
Samar Jeet Singh and others.
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh.
For the Appellants : Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate
with Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the State : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Govt. Advocate.
Present : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, JJ.
JUDGMENT
( .8.2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by:
N.K.Gupta, J. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 11.12.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in S.T.No.193/1999 and S.T.No.65/2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence Fine Default
Sentence
U/s 302/34 Life Rs.500/- R.I. for 3
of IPC Imprisonment months
U/s 307/34 R.I. for 10 years Rs.500/- R.I. for 3
of IPC months.
U/s 450/34 R.I. for 5 years Rs.500/- R.I. for 3
of IPC months.
-:- 2 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 26.3.1997, the complainant Ramkumar @ Pottu (P.W.8) alongwith his son deceased Babulal and daughter Sushila went to Gariyara Mauhaar to collect some Mahua, near his house, situated at village Pasaud (Police Station - Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol). Appellant Samarjeet Singh stopped him from picking up Mahua fallen from the tree. The complainant Ram Kumar told him that the tree of Mahua was his property and therefore, he alone will collect the Mahua of that tree. The appellant Samarjeet Singh also threatened the complainant that he would bring a gun to teach him a lesson. The complainant alongwith his son and daughter continued to collect Mahua. At about 9 a.m., the complainant saw the appellant Samarjeet Singh coming towards him having a gun in his hand alongwith Kaptan Singh and Sheopal Singh. The appellant Kaptan Singh also had a gun, whereas the appellant Sheopal Singh had a tangi (small axe). The complainant alongwith his children ran towards his house. But the appellants also chased and entered the house of complainant. Kaptan Singh fired with the gun, causing injury on the head of deceased Babulal.
Head of deceased Babulal was broken and he fell on ground and died. Appellant Samarjeet Singh had also fired with the
-:- 3 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 gun, causing injury in the left elbow of complainant Ramkumar and thereafter, the appellants had ran away. Sushila (P.W.9), daughter of complainant was also present at the spot at the time of incident, whereas Chhallu and Munna, brothers of complainant Ramkumar came to the spot after hearing the noise of commotion. Thereafter, complainant Ramkumar went to the Police Station alongwith Chhallu and Rampal and lodged an FIR, Ex.P/18. Complainant Ramkumar had been sent for his medico legal examination, whereas dead body of deceased Babulal was sent for post-mortem. Dr.Sampoorananand (P.W.1) had performed the post-mortem on the body of deceased Babulal @ Dadu, aged 11 years and gave his report, Ex.P/1. He found entry as well as exit wound on the head of deceased Babulal. His frontal, parietal and other various bones in the head were found broken. He died due to head injury caused by gun shot. His death was homicidal in nature. He had also examined the victim Ramkumar and gave his report, Ex.P/3. He found entry as well exit wound on left elbow of the complainant, caused by gun shot and he found consequential injuries on his left elbow. The police seized various articles from the spot, accused and the officials of hospital and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory after sealing them. In Forensic Science Laboratory report,
-:- 4 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 Ex.P/17, it was opined that there was a dent mark of gun shot on bamboo, whereas a piece of lead was found by the police was a piece of bullet fired from a smooth bore weapon. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Beohari, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Shahdol and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari.
3. The appellants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in defence and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the accused Ajeet Singh but, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. In the present case, the witnesses Sushila (P.W.9), Bhuggi @ Juggi (P.W.11) and Ramkumar (P.W.8) were examined as eye witnesses. Initially they have stated about the entire incident. They have also stated that appellant Kaptan Singh fired his gun and caused a fatal injury to deceased Babulal, whereas due to gun shot fire made by appellant Samarjeet, Ramkumar sustained an injury on his left elbow. Other witnesses like Phool Bai (P.W.10), Munni
-:- 5 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 (P.W.12), Munna (P.W.13) were examined as witnesses, who reached the spot, soon after the incident and they saw the appellants leaving the spot. The witnesses Ramkali (P.W.3), Ujariya (P.W.5), Ram Bai (P.W.6), Radhe (P.W.7) did not support the prosecution's story from very beginning. Witnesses Ram Kumar (P.W.8), Sushila (P.W.9), Phool Bai (P.W.10), Buggi @ Juggi (P.W.11), Munni (P.W.12) and Munna (P.W.13) have turned hostile during their cross- examination. They gave a different version that two unknown persons came on motorcycle and out of them, one had fired from the gun and injuries were caused to deceased Babulal as well as complainant Ram Kumar.
7. The complainant Ramkumar had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/18 soon after the incident. Police station Jaisingh Nagar was 30 kms away from his house and he had lodged the FIR within two hours. Dr.Sampoorananand had proved the post-mortem report, Ex.P/1 of deceased Babulal and MLC report, Ex.P/3 of complainant Ramkumar and it is proved by Dr.Sampoorananand that deceased Babulal died due to gun shot head injury and complainant Ramkumar had sustained injury from gun shot. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, their testimony could not be relied upon. In support of his contention, he has placed his
-:- 6 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Jagir Singh Vs. The State (Delhi Administration)", [AIR 1975 SC 1400] , in which it is held that if a witness has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit altogether and not merely get rid of his testimony. However, thereafter, view of Hon'ble the Apex Court was slightly changed. In case of "Dhananjay Chhaterjee Vs. State of West Bengal", [(1994) 2 SCC 220] , it was held that testimony of a hostile witness should be carefully scrutinized. Such part of his testimony which has received corroboration from other evidence on record can be accepted. Under such circumstances, if a prosecution witness turns hostile then, his entire testimony should not be thrown but, acceptable portion of his testimony may be used while appreciating the evidence if such part is corroborated by other evidence. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witnesses Ramkumar and Sushila is to be examined.
8. Initially, complainant Ramkumar and eye witness Sushila have stated about the incident and thereafter, they had changed their evidence in the cross-examination. It is true that only one piece of lead was found at the spot but, looking to the injuries caused to deceased Babulal and
-:- 7 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 complainant Ramkumar, it would be apparent that they did not sustain injuries from one gun shot. It is not established by the circumstances that by firing a gun, pellets were discharged. If pellets would have been discharged from firing a gun then, deceased Babulal would have sustained injuries of different pellets and similarly, complainant Ramkumar would have also sustained the injury of some pellets and some pellets would have also found on the wall and floor. But no multiple pellets were found at the spot, nor it is alleged that pellets struck on wall or other places. Hence, injuries caused to deceased Babulal and complainant Ramkumar had been caused by two different gun shots and therefore, the testimony of the witnesses, after they turned hostile, appears to be hypothetical, which is not corroborated by the medical evidence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no enmity between the appellants and the complainant and therefore, there was no need to the appellant to go and fire at deceased and the complainant. It is true that there was no previous enmity between the parties but, according to the statements made by the witnesses, it would be apparent that when the complainant alongwith his children was picking up Mahua fallen from a tree then, appellant Samarjeet Singh stopped them and
-:- 8 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 stated that he would bring a gun and teach a lesson and thereafter, he came with the gun. Therefore, though there was no previous enmity between the parties but, that enmity was created soon before the incident when the complainant and his children were picking Mahua fallen from the tree and therefore, the appellants cannot get any advantage that they did not have any enmity with the complainant.
10. It is pertinent to note that witnesses Ramkumar (P.W.8), Sushila (P.W.9), Phool Bai (P.W.10), Buggi @ Juggi (P.W.11) were initially examined on 17.12.1999 before the trial Court. On that day, the learned defence counsel sought an adjournment due to his non preparation of the case and thereafter, these witnesses were re-examined between 11.1.2000 to 1.7.2000 when they turned hostile. Apparently either the witnesses were won over after recording of their examination-in-chief or they were threatened not to support the prosecution's case. In this regard, the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Khujii @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", [AIR 1991 SC 1853] may be referred, in which it is held that if a witness whose cross-examination is deferred and subsequently turns hostile then, his previous testimony cannot be brushed aside on the ground that he was declared hostile. A small portion of para 6 of that judgment may be read as under:-
-:- 9 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 "That the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and crossexamined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."
Such decision was taken by Hon'ble the Apex Court on the basis of following reasons:-
"The High Court came to the conclusion and, in our opinion rightly, that during the one month period that elapsed since the recording of his examination-in-chief something transpired which made him shift his evidence on the question of identity to help the appellant. We are satisfied on a reading of his entire evidence that his statement in cross-examination on the question of identity of the appellant and his companion is a clear attempt to wriggle out of what he had stated earlier in his examination-in-chief."
In the present case, it would be apparent that the witnesses Ramkumar, Sushila etc. have changed their testimony at the time of the cross-examination when cross-examination was deffered and therefore, their depositions given prior to the cross-examination may be relied upon, if there is corroborative evidence to that effect.
11. In the present case, the previous version of these witnesses is duly corroborated by timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/18, post-mortem report, Ex.P/1 of deceased Babulal and MLC report, Ex.P/3 of complainant Ramkumar. Under such circumstances, the acceptable testimony of witnesses Ramkumar and Sushila Bai may be acted upon and it is
-:- 10 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 proved beyond doubt that appellant Kaptan Singh fired from a gun causing death of deceased Babulal, whereas appellant Samarjeet Singh fired from a gun, causing injury on the left elbow of complainant Ramkumar.
12. So far as the overt-act of appellant Kaptan Singh is concerned, he was not present at the scene of crime in the first part of the incident. He came with appellant Samarjeet Singh having a gun. The moment he entered inside the house, he fired his gun at Babulal, a small child of 11 years, who died on the spot. If appellant Kaptan Singh did not have any intention to kill deceased Babulal then, he would not have fired from his gun at the head. Hence, death of deceased Babulal was caused by appellant Kaptan Singh with an intention to commit his murder and the trial Court has rightly convicted him of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
13. So far as the act of appellant Samarjeet Singh is concerned when he reached the spot and his co-accused Kaptan Singh had fired with a gun, killing deceased Babulal, he fired from his gun and injury was caused to complainant Ramkumar. It was apparent that complainant Ramkumar sustained a simple injury on his left elbow but, looking to the nature of injury that there was an entry wound as well as exit wound, it would be apparent that bullet had passed
-:- 11 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 through and through from a portion of his left elbow. The appellant Samarjeet Singh had given a threat to the complainant when he was picking up Mahua under a tree that he would come with a gun and teach him a lesson. Thereafter, he not only came with a gun but, also came with two persons, out of them, one had a gun, who fired from the gun, causing death of deceased Babulal. Thereafter, Samarjeet Singh had fired with the gun. It is true that gun shot did not hit the complainant Ramkumar on any vital part of the body but, that was due to act of God and his good luck. When the appellants learnt rushing of number of persons towards the spot, they fled and therefore, if complainant Ramkumar was left without fatal injury then also it makes no difference. If overall conduct of appellant Samarjeet Singh is considered then, it would be apparent that he had intended to kill the complainant Ramkumar and therefore, though no fatal injury was caused to complainant Ramkumar, appellant Samarjeet Singh had committed an offence under Section 307 of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant Samarjeet Singh of that offence.
14. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be apparent that appellant Sheopal Singh did not assault anyone with the weapon, which was
-:- 12 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 kept by him in his hand and therefore, he did not commit either an offence under Section 307 of IPC or any inferior offence of same nature as of Section 307 of IPC. So far as his common intention is concerned, it is true that he came with the co-accused persons, who had fire arms and they also fired from the fire arms but, possibility cannot be ruled out that appellant Sheopal Singh might not have any information about the probable activities of other co-accused persons when he reached to the spot with them. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Girja Shankar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh", [(2004) 3 SCC 793] , in which it is held that meeting of minds of all accused who committed the offence whether pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment and action in furtherance of common intention is essential. Acts of all accused persons need not the same or identical but, must be acted with the same common intention. Even an accused who has not caused any injury to the deceased, if some overt-act is shown to have been committed by him in furtherance of any common intention to cause death, he would be liable to be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC with aid of Section 34 of IPC. In the light of the judgment passed in case of Girjashankar (supra), if conduct
-:- 13 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 of the appellant Sheopal Singh is considered, then it is true that he came to the spot alongwith two accused persons armed with guns but, after reaching the spot, there is no overt-act of appellant Sheopal Singh to show that he had intended to kill deceased Babulal or he intended to cause any injury to complainant Ramkumar. Possibility cannot be ruled out that he would have changed his mind after his arrival at the spot and therefore, there was no overt-act of appellant Sheopal Singh to show his common intention with the co-accused Samarjeet Singh or Kaptan Singh. Hence, appellant Sheopal Singh could not be convicted for any of the offence committed by the co-accused persons with help of Section 34 of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant Sheopal Singh of various offences.
15. Similarly, common intention of appellant Samarjeet Singh and Kaptan Singh may also be considered with each other because appellant Samarjeet Singh had committed the crime under Section 307 of IPC, whereas appellant Kaptan Singh had committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted these two appellants of both the offences with help of Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon various judgments
-:- 14 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases of "Lalaram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", [AIR 1994 SC 1452] , "Dajya Moshya Bhil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra", [(1984) (Supp.) SCC 373] , "Ramaswami Ayyangar and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu", [(1976) 3 SCC 779 ], "Gajjan Singh Vs. State of Punjab" [(1976) 3 SCC 391] , "Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab", [(2001) 4 SCC 193] and Girjashankar (supra), in all the cases, the factual position was discussed and a conclusion had been drawn as to whether the co-accused had common intention with the main accused or not and in such cases, the principle to assess the common intention is also laid by Hon'ble the Apex Court. In the light of aforesaid judgments, if the common intention of the appellants Samarjeet Singh and Kaptan Singh is assessed then, it is proved that appellant Kaptan Singh killed the child Babulal. The appellant Samarjeet Singh had a hot talk with complainant Ramkumar when he was picking Mahua under a tree, alongwith his children. There was no need for appellant Samarjeet Singh to cause any harm to 11 years old child Babulal, when he went to the house of complainant Ramkumar alongwith two accused persons armed with gun and Dhariya. Hence, his intention could be to kill the complainant Ramkumar. On reaching the house of
-:- 15 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 appellant Ramkumar, he did not intend to kill child Babulal. Though he went with a fire arm alongwith two armed companions, but he never intended to kill child Babulal. Even he could not think of that the co-accused Kaptan Singh would fire from a gun and kill the child Babulal. Under such circumstances, by mere going to the house of complainant Ramkumar with a gun and taking two companions, it cannot be said that appellant Samarjeet Singh had intended to kill the deceased Babulal and therefore, there was no common intention of appellant Samarjeet Singh with appellant Kaptan Singh, who killed deceased child Babulal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted appellant Samarjeet Singh of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC with aid of Section 34 of IPC.
16. On the other hand, it is apparent that appellant Kaptan Singh went with the co-accused Samarjeet Singh, who was also armed with a gun and as soon as he reached the spot, he fired from the gun. It means he had knowledge that they had to go to the house of complainant to kill complainant and in doing so, he killed the child Babulal. Under such circumstances, the overt-act of appellant Kaptan Singh clearly indicates that he had common intention with the co-accused Samarjeet Singh and therefore, the trial
-:- 16 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 Court had rightly convicted appellant Kaptan Singh of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
17. The trial Court has also convicted the appellants for offence under Section 450 of IPC. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the witnesses, the incident took place at an open place in the courtyard and therefore, no offence of house trespass was made out. In this context, attention of this Court is invited to the spot map, Ex.P/13, in which it is proved by ASI Shri D.S.Dwivedi (P.W.16) that the incident took place in a courtyard and which cannot be considered a house. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted because if the spot map, Ex.P/13 is considered minutely then, there was a badi prepared by the complainant near his house. There was a chogan (courtyard) which was not covered by roof but fenced. The incident took place in a second courtyard, which has no roof but, it was covered from 4 sides with walls and rooms of the complainant. Also, it has a gate, so that anyone cannot enter inside if gate was closed. Therefore, the place of incident is nothing but, a part of house, within the meaning of Section 442 of IPC. In this context, the judgment of the Punjab High Court in "Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab", [AIR 1956 Punjab 122] may be referred, in which it is mentioned that the courtyard of
-:- 17 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 the house where the complainant lived and tethered his cattle is a building, answering Section 442 of IPC. Hence, the place of incident was a house as defined under Section 442 of IPC. The appellant Samarjeet Singh and Kaptan Singh entered inside the house to commit a crime punishable with life imprisonment and therefore, they were guilty of offence under Section 450 of IPC. The learned Additional Sessions judge has rightly convicted these two appellants for the offence under Section 450 of IPC.
17. So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant Sheopal Singh shall be acquitted of all the offences for which he was convicted and therefore, there is no need to discuss about his sentence. The appellant Kaptan Singh has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has already undergone the sentence to the remaining offences. The trial Court did not impose death sentence for offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, already a lesser sentence has been imposed by the trial Court and hence, there is no need to interfere in the sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant Kaptan Singh. The appellant Samarjeet Singh is found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 450 of IPC. He has already undergone the sentence directed by the trial Court of such offence.
-:- 18 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 Hence, there is no need to make any interference in the sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant Samarjeet Singh.
18. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant Sheopal Singh is hereby allowed. Conviction and sentence of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 450/34 of IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the charges of all the offences.
The appeal filed by the appellant Kaptan Singh is dismissed in toto. The appeal filed by the appellant Samarjeet Singh is hereby partly allowed. His conviction as well as sentence of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of that charge, whereas conviction of remaining offences as well as consequential sentence is maintained. Since he has already undergone the sentence imposed for remaining offences, he shall be released from jail without any delay.
19. Office is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant of the appellant Samarjeet Singh and released warrant of the appellant Sheopal Singh.
(AJIT SINGH) (N.K.GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
/8/2014 /8/2014
-:- 19 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001
Pushpendra