Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pappi @ Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2017
Author: Ved Prakash Sharma
Bench: Ved Prakash Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE.
DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK VERMA &
HON'BLE SHRI VED PRAKASH SHARMA, JJ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.217/2013
Pappi @ Sunil S/o Champalal Panwar
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
_______________________________________________________
Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned counsel for respondent/State.
_____________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
th (Passed on this 09 day of May, 2017) PER: ALOK VERMA, J.
This criminal appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No.866/2011 dated 05.02.2013 whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. It was admitted that the present appellant is husband of Guddi @ Chandrakala PW-3 and father of Nandini, PW-4. Deceased Gautam and Pawan PW-1 is cousin brother of Guddi @ Chandrakala PW-3, while Ratna PW-6 is sister- in-law of the present appellant. 2
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.09.2011, the complainant Munna PW-2 was standing with the deceased Gautam at about 7.45 P.M. in front of his house. The appellant called the deceased, who was his brother-in-law to his house and started using abusive language against him. When the deceased tried to stop him and cautioned him against using such abusive language, he inflicted one knife blow on his chest, which caused stab wound on the chest of the deceased that resulted in his death. It is further alleged that when Guddi, wife of the present appellant tried to intervene he also inflicted injuries by knife on her.
4. The reason and genesis of the dispute was that the present appellant had beaten the maternal aunt of the complainant about two years prior to the incident and due to that reason the appellant was nurturing grudge and inimical feelings against the complainant. After the incident, the complainant, Munna PW-2 and Jai Jadhav his brother PW-5 took the deceased in an auto-rickshaw belonging to Dilip PW-7. They reached the hospital at 9 P.M. and the doctor examined him and declared him brought dead. The complainant Munna PW-2 thereafter proceeded to Police Station Rajendra Nagar, district Indore to lodge an FIR. The FIR was registered by Police Station Rajendra Nagar at Crime No.479/2011 at 9.50 P.M. The investigating officer reached on the spot on 12.09.2011 at 9 A.M. He prepared a spot map Ex.P-14. Inquest Panchnama was prepared at the hospital at 10 A.M. on 12.09.2011 and the postmortem was conducted on the dead body of the 3 deceased at 11.05 A.M. The appellant was arrested on 24.09.2011. His memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded on 24.09.2011 at 6.55 P.M. On the basis of the disclosure memo a knife was recovered from the house of the maternal cousin at Jabran Colony, Indore on 24.09.11 at 8 P.M. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed which was committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses and statement of the present appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order and found that the charge under Section 324 of IPC was not made out. Accordingly, the present appellant was acquitted from charge under Section 324 of IPC, while he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing the murder of deceased Gautam and sentenced him to life imprisonment as aforesaid. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence, this jail appeal is filed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in this case, all the prosecution witnesses, who were examined as eye witnesses were close relatives of the deceased. It is also proved according to him that there was some dispute between them and it was also admitted by wife of the present appellant Guddi @ Chandrakala PW-3 that the appellant used to beat her. He was of criminal mentality. He also admitted that due to these reasons he had dispute on every 4 occasion prior to the incident. It was also admitted by all the prosecution witnesses about 2 years prior, some incident took place in which allegedly the appellant had beaten the maternal aunt of wife and due to this all the in-laws and brother of his wife were keeping inimical feeling against him.
7. Learned Sessions Judge observed in the impugned judgment that though this fact was correct that there was no independent eye witness in this case, however, still he found the statement of the prosecution witnesses reliable. It is established principle of law that merely because the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased or they had inimical relationship prior to the incident, their statement could not be disbelieved by the Court and the conviction of the appellant could not be placed on them. The only caution to be exercised in such cases is that they should be examined minutely and in detail and when their statements are found reliable in all aspect, the conviction can be based on their statement.
8. In the present case, the incident took place at 7.45 P.M. The decease was taken to the hospital at 9 P.M. and thereafter a report was lodged by Munna PW-2 at 9.50 P.M. The incident took place in the evening and, therefore, there was no possibility of any mistaken identity, as suggested by the defence counsel to all the prosecution witnesses. The defence story suggested to the prosecution witnesses was that as the appellant was of criminal disposition and had many 5 enemies, someone came to kill him. However, under a mistaken identity, he killed the deceased. This argument cannot be accepted, as the incident took place during the evening hours and that time normally, now a days, people remain awake and houses are well lighted. There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that there was no light in which such mistake could take place.
9. This apart, if we examine the statements of PW-2 Munna in detail, he stated that he went with the deceased into the house of the present appellant. They both asked for a glass of water. This statement is slightly different as stated in the FIR. In the FIR, he stated that the deceased went inside the house, while he remained standing outside. When he started using abusive language, the deceased cautioned him and tried to stop him, but in the Court statement, he stated that he went inside the house, he did not say anything about using abusive language by the appellant and straightway he stated that he inflicted one injury by knife. In para 3 of his statement, he stated that fact that both went inside the house, was not told by him to the police due to nervousness. He also stated that he told the police that they both went inside and then they asked for water. This is an omission in Ex.D-2, his police statement and FIR Ex.P-6. Also there is an omission in FIR Ex.P-6 and in his statement that he tried to run away when the appellant chased him and Guddi @ Chandrakala, wife of the appellant intervened. However, the portion, that wife intervened is mentioned in the FIR. These are the only omissions found in his statement. Apart from this, 6 no other discrepancies or omissions were pointed out by the defence.
10. Guddi @ Chandrakala PW-3 is the wife of the appellant. She was present in the house. She sustained some injuries in an effort to save the deceased. She was medically examined and the doctor confirms it that some incised wounds were on her waist and left side of her abdomen. The defence counsel tried to challenge the statement of this witness on the ground that she was not very happy with the behaviour of her husband, as he was of criminal bent of mind and also used to beat her. However, fact remains that she was living with the appellant. There is no challenge to this fact that she was living with the appellant and she was in the house when the incident took place, and therefore, merely, as there was some dispute between the couple, it could not be said that due to such small dispute, she deposed against her husband to implicate him falsely.
11. Similarly, Nandini PW-4 is the daughter of the appellant. She also supported the prosecution story. There was no material available on record to show that she was tutored by anybody to give false statement against her own father. Dilip PW-7 in whose Auto, the deceased was shifted to the hospital was declared hostile, as he resiled from that part of the police statement, in which he stated that when he reached on the spot hearing the commotion of the wife of the deceased and other persons present there, they told him that the appellant inflicted injury by knife on the deceased. However, he admitted in his 7 statement that he shifted the deceased in his auto-rickshaw to the hospital and reached immediately after the incident and saw the deceased lying there in injured condition.
12. Taking the statements of all the witnesses together into consideration, their statements are reliable, though they are closely related with the deceased, their statement could be relied, as they are supported by medical evidence and there were not material contradictions in these statements. In this situation, it is proved that the appellant inflicted a single wound by knife on the deceased, which resulted in his death. This brought us to the argument put forth by the defence counsel that this case falls under Section of 304-II of IPC, as there was no intention to cause death of the deceased and it was only by knowledge by which, the wounds were caused, that it may cause death of the deceased. However, looking to the facts which emerge from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that at the time of incident, the deceased was not apprehending any attack from the appellant. On his calling, he went to his house without realizing what was in store for him in future.
13. In contrast, appellant was ready with knife. He was having knife on his person, when he called the deceased and that indicate that he had intention to commit murder of the deceased. Whatever may be the reason or whatever may be there in his mind, cannot be assessed, but fact remains that the statement of the prosecution witnesses suggest 8 some premeditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. His subsequent act of running from the house and he was arrested only on 24.09.2011, almost 13 days of the incident show his guilt.
14. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the intention to kill the deceased was clear, though there was only a single blow, but the force and depth of the wound was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and in this view of the matter the trial Court rightly convicted the present appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal has no force and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.
C.C.as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) (VED PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ