Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 July, 2018
Author: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
DIVISION BENCH: Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava.
Cr. Appeal No. 933 of 2009
Ramesh Singh Lodhi and another
Versus.
State of MP through PS Damoh Dehat, Damoh
________________________________________________________
Shri Madan Singh, counsel for the appellants
Shri A.N. Gupta, Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGMENT
[Pronounced on 05.07.2018] As per S.K. Gangele, J:
1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 20.03.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.183/2006, by the Sessions Judge, Damoh. Appellants were prosecuted for commission of offence of murder of two persons namely; Narayan and Bodhan. Trial Court held each of the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and awarded a sentence for Life with fine of Rs.1000/- on two counts.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that, on 29.05.2005 at 8.30 in the night Bhupendra Singh was coming in a jeep from Balakot to Chourai Devendra Singh, Bahadur and Hemraj were also with them. Ahead of the jeep, Narayan Singh and Bodhan [since deceased] were also going on motorbike. Near Satdhara river, accused persons Ramesh 2 and Bhuran armed with guns along with other companion came there. They had opened fire at Narayan Singh and Bodhan. Both fell down. Accused persons ran away from the spot. Deceased persons were taken to District Hospital Damoh where they were declared dead. Information was sent to the Police Station thereafter, merg was registered. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet. During trial appellant abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. Trial Court held the appellants guilty and awarded sentence as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are major omissions and contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses PW-2, PW-14, PW-5 and PW-12 hence, their evidence is not reliable. In alternate, learned counsel has submitted that the offence committed by the appellants would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
4. Contrary to this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that there are eye witnesses of the incident. Named FIR was lodged. Accused persons killed two persons. Deceased received gun shot injuries. Ocular evidence is in consonance with the medical evidence. Hence, the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty and awarded proper sentence. 3
5. (PW-2) Bhupendra Singh is the complainant and he is eye witness of the incident. He deposed that I lived at village Chourai. I am member of Balakot Janpad. On the date of incident, i.e on 29.05.2005 at 8.30 in the night, I was returning back to Chourai from Balakot in a jeep. In my jeep, Devendra Singh and Hemraj were also with me. In front of jeep, Naranan Lodhi and Bodhan were going on a motorbike and on another motorbike Rajdev and Ajay were there. One motorbike was driven by Narayan Singh and another motorbike was driven by Ajay Singh. I saw in the headlight of the jeep that appellant/accused Ramesh and Bhuran Lodhi along with two persons came there from one side of the road. Accused Ramesh and Bhuran Lodhi had guns with them. They had opened fire at Narayan and Bodhan. Deceased fell down from motorbike. Accused persons ran away near Hill. There was gun shot injury on the stomach of Narayan and on the neck of Bodhan. We had taken the deceased in a bus to District Hospital Damoh where doctor declared them dead. I send a report to the Police Station from the Hospital which is Ex.P-5.
6. Another eye witness is (PW-4) Hemraj Singh. He was also in the jeep along with Bhupendra Singh, Devendra Singh and Bahadur Singh. He deposed the same facts as deposed by PW-2. He specifically deposed that deceased were riding motorbike and by the side of the road accused persons Ramesh and Bhuran came there 4 along with two other persons. Accused Ramesh and Bhuran opened fire which had hit the deceased. They fell down and thereafter, we had taken them to District Hospital.
7. (PW-5) Rajdev is another eye witness of the incident. He deposed that we were coming from Balakot to Chourai. Ajay and Mudi were on one motorcycle and in another motorcycle Narayan and Bodhan Raikwar were there. We were travelling ahead of the jeep. When we crossed the river, four persons came there, I identified two persons. Ramesh and Bhuran had gun with them, they opened fire at the deceased. Deceased persons fell down. Thereafter, we had taken deceased to District Hospital.
8. (PW-12) Mudi @ Imrat is another eye witness. He deposed that I was coming on a motorbike from Balakot along with me Ajay and Rajdev were there. Deceased Bodhan Raikwar and Narayan were on another motorbike. Near Satdhara Nala, both the accused persons came there and they had opened fire at the deceased. Jeep of Bhupendra Singh was also coming behind us. We had taken the deceased to District Hospital, where they were declared dead by the doctor. There was ill will on account of liquor contract hence, appellants had killed the deceased.
9. (PW-1) Dr. P.C. Swarnakar, performed the post-mortem of the deceased. He deposed that I was posted as Medical Officer at District 5 Hospital Damoh on 30.05.2005. On the aforesaid date, I performed post-mortem of the deceased Bodhan s/o Nanhebhai Raikwar. He deposed that he noticed following injuries on the body of Bodhan.
"Gun shot injury on the chest of the deceased 1.5 cm round in diameter circular in shape. There was tautting present on the wound. Lungs were filled with blood.
Deceased was died due to gun shot injuries it was antemortem in nature.
He further deposed that on the same day, I performed the post-motem of the deceased Narayan Lodhi. I noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased Narayan.
"One entry wound 1.5 cm. Margins were inveterate, it was left side of the stomach large intestine was damaged.
Entry wound on the chest of the nipple 4" cm x 1.5" cm. Tautting was present on the injuries. Heart was damaged due to injuries. Two oval shape injuries were present on left thigh."
As opinion of the doctor, deceased was died due to aforesaid injuries.
10. (PW-11) D.S. Tiwari, ASI deposed that I recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-5 which was registered on the information of Bhupendra. 6
11. Another witness (PW-10) Balkrishna, Head Constable deposed that I registered Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-5 and signed the same and also registered the offence.
12. (PW-7) A.K. Shrivastava,ASI deposed that ward boy of District Hospital brought Ex-P-14 and I registered the offence and merg Ex- P-15.
13. (PW-13) A.K. Shrivastava, deposed that I was posted as SHO (In charge) and conducted partial investigation of the case. I prepared spot map which is Ex-P-23 and I also seized plain earth and red earth vide seizure memo Ex.P-12 and signed the same. I recorded statements of the witnesses.
14. There is named FIR (Ex-P-20). There are eye witnesses of the incident (PW-2), (PW-4), (PW-5) and (PW-12). They specifically deposed that they had seen that both the appellants were armed with deadly weapons i.e. guns and they had fired gun shots at the deceased. Due to aforesaid act, the deceased were died. (PW-1) Dr. P.C. Swarnkar, who performed the postmortem, verified the fact that the deceased were died due to gun shot injuries. Injuries were on vital part of the body.
15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that offence committed by the appellants would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, is not tenable because appellants were 7 armed with deadly weapons. They opened fire. Deceased received gun shot injuries on vital parts of the body. Deceased were died on the spot. Hence, in our opinion, the intention and motive of the appellants was to murder the deceased.
16. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the trial Court has considered the evidence properly. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. GANGELE) (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
PB
Digitally signed by
PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Date: 2018.07.06
23:33:59 -07'00'