Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar vs The State Of M.P. on 11 January, 2018
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1 Cr.A. No.1057/2002
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DIVISION BENCH
Criminal Appeal No. 1057/2002
APPELLANT : Vijay Kumar, S/o Dayaram
Meshram, Aged about 26 years,
R/o village Otekala, P.S. Bahela,
Tehsil Lanjhi, District Balaghat.
Vs.
RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh
For the appellant : Shri P.N. Verma,
Advocate as amicus curiae.
For the respondent : Shri Manish Awasthy, Govt.
Advocate
PRESENT : Hon'ble Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Nandita Dubey
Arguments heard on : 06.01.2018
Judgment delivered on : 11.01.2018
Whether approved for reporting :
Law laid down
Significant paragraph numbers :
JUDGMENT
As per Nandita Dubey, J.:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.02.1997, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in S.T. No. 04/1995, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced 2 Cr.A. No.1057/2002 to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 307 of the I.P.C. with a stipulation for 3 months rigorous imprisonment in case of default for each offence.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 17.10.1994 at about 4-4.30 A.M. in the night, when deceased Sanjay was sleeping with his wife Panchasheelabai (P.W.-1) inside the room, the appellant, who is the elder brother of the deceased attacked them with a night causing grievous injuries to both of them. Hearing the shouts of Pancheelabai (P.W.-1), Dayaram (D.W.-2), father of the deceased and Sakkubai (P.W.-2), mother of the deceased came running to the room and intervened, thereafter Sanjay and Panchasheelabai were taken to the government hospital. Sanjay was referred to City hospital, where en-route he succumbed to the injuries.
3. FIR to this effect was lodged by P.W.-1 Panchaseelabai, on the basis of which criminal law was set into motion. Merg intimation was recorded on the information of D.W.-2 Dayaram and spot map was prepared and the statements of other witnesses were 3 Cr.A. No.1057/2002 also recorded.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case, produced 10 witnesses. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He produced three witnesses in his defence.
5. The trial court has recorded a finding that the appellant was guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly by placing reliance on the evidence of injured eye witness P.W.-1 Panchseelabai and P.W.-2 Sakkubai and the medical evidence on record.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is observed that it is an undisputed fact that appellant is the elder brother of the deceased and son of Dayaram (D.W-2) and Sakkubai (P.W.-2) and brother-in-law (jeth) of injured Panchasheelabai (P.W.-1). It is also undisputed that Dayram (D.W.-2) and Sakkubai (P.W.-2) willingly got their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
7. On scrutiny of record, it is found that, as 4 Cr.A. No.1057/2002 many as 8 injuries were inflicted upon the face and vital parts of brain of deceased Sanjay, who succumbed to his injuries, while en-route to the hospital. According to the doctor, all the injuries were grievous in nature and caused by sharp cutting object and hard and blunt object within six hours of the death. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was coma as a result of injury found on the face and vital parts of the brain.
8. P.W.-6 Dr. N.K. Choudhary, who has examined P.W.-1 Panchasheelabai, found 11 incised wounds on the body of the injured. Dr. N.K. Choudhary on query has opined that the injuries to deceased Sanjay and injured Panchaseelabai could be caused by the seized weapons.
9. P.W.-1 Panchasheelabai has stated that appellant, who is her brother-in-law was having ill- intentions towards her and previously also has manhandled her. She has further stated that earlier she made a complaint regarding this to her deceased husband and her in-laws and due to this reason the deceased scolded the appellant and a verbal altercation took place between her deceased husband 5 Cr.A. No.1057/2002 and the appellant. She has further stated that on the fateful night, she was sleeping with her husband in the room, whereas her in-laws and appellant were sleeping outside in verandah. At 3.30 A.M. in the night, she woke up hearing the cries of her husband and saw the appellant attacking and assaulting her husband with knife and binni. When she tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by the appellant. Hearing her cries for help, Dayaram (D.W.-2) and Sakkubai (P.W.-2), came inside and saved her. Her statement is corroborated by Sakkubai (P.W.-2) and Gorelal (P.W.-4). P.W.-2 Sakkubai has clearly stated that on hearing the cries of Panchasheelabai (P.W.-1), she went inside the room and saw her younger son lying unconscious and Panchasheelabai (P.W.-1) being assaulted by the appellant. These witnesses have remained consistent despite their extensive cross-examination.
10. Dayaram (D.W.-2), father of the appellant has deposed as a defence witness. His statement that on the fateful night, two unknown persons have entered into his house who intended to kidnap Panchasheelabai, and in the scuffle deceased and P.W.- 1 Panchasheelabai got injured, cannot be believed in view of his earlier statement given under Section 164 6 Cr.A. No.1057/2002 of the Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate. Moreover, he has not denied that the merg intimation was recorded as per his information, which clearly mentions that he went inside the room on hearing the cries of his daughter-in-law P.W.-1 Panchasheelabai and saw his elder son Vijay/appellant assaulting his younger son sanjay and his daughter-in-law Panvhsheelabai, due to which they have sustained injuries on the face, nose and eyes. I.O., Chhaganlal (P.W.-5) has asserted that the police recorded the merg intimation on the statement of D.W.-2 Dayaram. In view of these facts, the story of intended kidnapping put up by the defence does not inspire confidence.
11. From the aforesaid scrutiny, it is clear that the statements of P.W.-1 Panchasheelabai and P.W.-2 Sakkubai are very consistent, truthful, reliable, unimpeachable and of sterling quality and rightly relied upon by the trial Court in recording a finding of guilt and the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. against the appellant
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the appellants 7 Cr.A. No.1057/2002 under Sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. is accordingly affirmed and confirmed. The appellant, who is in jail shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of the jail sentence.
13. A copy of this judgment be sent to the M.P. High Court Legal Service Committee, Jabalpur for necessary information.
(Anurag Shrivastava) (Nandita Dubey)
JUDGE JUDGE
11/01/2018 11/01/2018
gn
Digitally signed by GEETHA NAIR
Date: 2018.01.11 16:49:54 +05'30'