Chattisgarh High Court
Lodhari Ram @ Tulsi vs State Of M.P. on 12 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)MPHT7(CG)
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
1. Impugning the correctness, validity and propriety of the judgment dated 1-10-1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 54/1999 by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigarh, convicting the appellant under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The facts in nut-shell are that on 22-12-1998 at about 10 p.m. when the present appellant and his father Singharam were sitting in their house, the appellant made a complaint to his own father that because of the complaint of his father, he is likely to go to jail, the father did not say anything. Taking an exception to it, the appellant had hit his father on head with a baton which caused an injury on the head. The said injury was 1 x -5 cm. Another con-
tuision was 6 x -5 cm. The victim was immediately referred to the hospital where his injuries were repaired and he was referred to the Radiologist. According to the report Ex. P-12, the Radiologist found a fracture on the head and ultimately observed that the injury was dangerous to life. Spot map was prepared. Plain and stained earth was recovered from the spot. The weapon of offence was recovered. The statement of witnesses were also recorded and on conclusion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the accused. As the accused denied commission of offence, he was put to trial.
3. After assessing the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court found in favour of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused, as referred to above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the Trial Court is influenced by conjunctures and surmises while in fact, there is no legal evidence available on the record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime or to record finding of guilt against the accused. After taking me through the evidence, he has submitted that the learned Court below has relied upon the statements of witnesses which otherwise are inadmissible in evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that from the statement of the witnesses and the medical report coupled with the statement of the Doctors, it is proved on record that the appellant was author of the injury.
5. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the records.
6. Singharam, the victim has not been examined as a witness probably as he had expired. Roopan (P. W. 2) and Bhinsarin (P.W. 4) wife of Singbaram; who are said to be the eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case. According to Roopan, he did not witness the incident nor he knew as to how his father suffered injuries. Even he denied the fact that the report was lodged by him. Bhinsarin (P.W. 4) wife of the victim and mother of the present appellant must have been in the horns of dilemma and finding in favour of the appellant, she did not support the prosecution and slated before the Court that at the time of alleged incident, she had gone to do some labour work. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined P.W. 1 Parameshwarwho has simply prepared a plan map. P.W. 3 Udaydas who says that he was informed by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 that the accused had hit the victim Singharam. P.W. 5 Mularobai has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 6 Kashi Ram is a witness to certain seizures. P.W. 7 B.S. Thakur, is the Investigating Officer who had made certain seizures & recoveries and had prepared certain memos. P.W. 8 Dr. Banodha, has certified the injuries of the victim.
7. It is not the prosecution case that barring P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, there were any other eye-witnesses. All the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. The statement of P.W. 3 Udaydas so far as it relates to the information received by him would not assume any importance unless the person who gave him the information, appears in the Court and says that such information was imparted by him to Udaydas. The statement of Udaydas can be used as corroborative evidence to show the immediate conduct of the person who fed him the information. Unless the person who gave the information to Udaydas comes and says before the Court that he himself was an eye-witness and had supplied the information to Udaydas, statement of Udaydas would not assume any importance. Virtually it would be hear-say and is inadmissible in evidence.
8. The recovery of certain articles such as blood stained baton, plain and stained earth would only show that somebody had beaten someone, but it would not lead to the only irresistable conclusion that it was the accused who caused injuries to the victim Singharam. In absence of any positive evidence to connect the applicant with the crime or to show that the applicant is the only person who can be held responsible for committing the alleged crime, no finding of guilt, could be recorded against the appellant.
The Trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The findings recorded by the learned Court below deserve to and are accordingly quashed. The appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of all the charges. He be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offences.
9. Criminal Appeal allowed.