Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
CRA 3352/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3352 of 2015
Between:-
1. JITENDRA SINGH @ HAKKE
MUNNA S/o SHRI FATEH
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS,
2. SUBHENDRA SINGH @ BABE
MUNNA S/o SHRI FATEH
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 47
YEARS,
3. HARBINDRA SINGH @ RAJU
S/o SHRI FATEH SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ALL THE R/o-BADAGAON, P.S.
DEVENDRA NAGAR, DISTT.
PANNA (M.P.).
..... APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH GAHARWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THR. P.S. DEVENDRA NAGAR,
DISTT. PANNA (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH YADAV, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
CRA 3352/2015
Reserved on : 03.03.2022
Delivered on : 16.06.2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court passed
the following:
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants had filed this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against their conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 05/2013 by Shri A.K. Pandey, Session Judge, Panna (M.P.).
2. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that incident occurred on 27.10.2012. Chandrapal, Pintu @ Brijendra Pratap Singh and one Kalyan Singh were going on a motorcycle. When they reached near house of Kamta Dubey, accused came there on their bikes and due to old enmity, fired over the complainants. Complainants immediately started running from the spot. They were followed by accused persons. When complainants were hiding behind a rock and Chandrapal tried to see the accused/convicts, appellant No.1 Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna fired on him from 315 bore rifle, due to which he received injury on his head. Complainant Chandrapal fell down on spot. Complainant Chandrapal Singh lodged FIR Ex.P-5 against appellants. Complainant Chandrapal was sent for medical examination. Police prepared spot map Ex.P-14 and seized blood stained soil, cartridge, one 12 bore live cartridge, Pulsar and Splendor motorcycles by Ex.P-15. Appellant No.2 Subhendra Singh @ Bade Munna was arrested and on basis of his memorandum, seizure of 315 3 CRA 3352/2015 bore gun was made (Article C) and license was also seized. Appellant No.1 Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna was arrested and he gave memorandum Ex.P/9, on basis of which 12 bore katta (Article A) and one cartridge (Article B) was seized by Ex. P/10. Cloths of Chandrapal Singh were also seized by Ex.P/19. Statements of witnesses were recorded and challan was filed before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Case was committed to Sessions Court for conducting trial.
3. Prosecution examined as may as 10 witnesses in the case namely PW-1 Dr. Sanjay Maheshwari, PW-2 Yogendra Mishra, PW-3 Basant Kumar Nayak, PW-4 Chandrapal Singh, PW-5 Uttam Singh Parmar, PW-6 Dhannu Kushwaha, PW-7 Sachin Singh Bagri, PW-8 Brijendra Pratap Singh, PW-9 Pramod Kumar Yadav and PW-10 Mahendra Singh Karchuli and defence examined one Dr. Rekha Maheshwari (DW-1) in defence of accused persons.
4. Trial Court, on basis of evidence available on record and statements of witnesses, convicted the appellants Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna, Subhendra Singh @ Bade Munna and Harbindra Singh @ Raju under Sections 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5-5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000- 10,000/- with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment of 2-2 months. Appellants Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna and Subhendra Singh @ Bade Munna were convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1-1 year and fine of Rs. 500-500/- with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment of 1-1 month. Appellants Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna and Subhendra Singh @ Bade 4 CRA 3352/2015 Munna were also convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3-3 years and fine of Rs. 1000-1000/- with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment of 1-1 month.
4. Appellants had challenged conviction and sentence on ground that in Ex.P/1 assault is said to be made by unknown persons. Injuries on victim were not dangerous to life as has been stated by PW-1, therefore, no case is made out under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. At best, appellants could be convicted under Section 327 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and history ticket of treatment of Chandrapal Singh also shows that unknown persons had committed the offence. There was no mens rea for committing the act and seizure of fire arm has not been proved. There is contradiction and omission in testimony of PW-4 Chandrapal Singh, PW-5 Uttam Singh Parmar and PW-8 Brijendra Pratap Singh, who were close relatives of the injured. In such circumstances, trial Court had committed an error of law in convicting and sentencing the appellants.
5. Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State supported the judgment passed by the trial Court. It is submitted that PW-3 Basant Kumar Nayak, Arms Clerk, PW-4 Chandrapal Singh, PW-5 Uttam Singh Parmar and PW-8 Brijendra Pratap Singh had supported the prosecution case. Injured witness Chandrapal PW-4 has unequivocally stated that Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna fired on him which missed, thereafter, Subhendra Singh @ Bade Munna had fired which hit him on his head. He also stated that Harbindra Singh @ Raju exhorted to kill him. Other eye 5 CRA 3352/2015 witnesses PW-5 and PW-8 have also stated that all the three appellants were on spot and they followed the complainant party when they tried to escape. Evidence available on record clearly points towards the guilt of the appellants. Eye witness account also shows that appellant No. 1 and 2 had fired the gun and appellant No. 3 has supported the assault. All appellants were present on spot with weapons. Fire was opened on complainant party, thereafter, all appellants also followed them for further assault, hence, Section 34 of IPC is also attracted in the case. Act of appellants with common intention could have caused death of appellants. No error has been committed by trial Court in convicting the appellants under Sections 307/34 of Indian Panel Code and appellant No. 1 and 2 under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act.
6. Heard the counsel appearing for the appellants as well as respondent/State.
7. Appellants had assailed the judgment and sentence on grounds that in Ex.P-1, it has been mentioned that assault has taken place by unknown persons. Since appellants were having old enmity with complainant party therefore, they are falsely being implicated in the case. On going through Ex.P-1, it is mentioned that patient was brought by Vishnu Pratap Singh and unknown persons had fired on head of victim. Vishnu Pratap Singh has not been examined in Court. Victim PW-4 Chandrapal Singh had stated that Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna had fired from 12 bore short gun. Subhendra Singh @ Bade Munna fired on Chandrapal Singh, which hit on his head. DW-1 Dr. Rekha Maheshwari stated that Ex.P-1 was written on basis of information given by Vishnu Pratap Singh. Eye witnesses of the 6 CRA 3352/2015 incident namely Chandrapal Singh (PW-4), Uttam Singh Parmar (PW-5) and Brijendra Pratap Singh (PW-8) had stated about involvement of appellants in the case. Evidence given by said persons is reliable and does not suffer from any infirmity. Therefore, the appellants will not get any benefit of document Ex.P-1, in which they are not naed as assaulters. Moreover, victim-complainant has immediately lodged FIR Ex.P-5, in which appellants have been named as the persons who had assaulted them with deadly weapons.
8. Counsel appearing for the appellants raised a ground that injury suffered by victim is not dangerous to life. Injury caused was superficial in nature and therefore, no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out against appellants. Appellants in furtherance of common intention had assaulted the complainant party with dangerous weapons and bullet had hit the head of the victim Chandrapal Singh. Since fire was done from dangerous weapons and injury is caused on the vital part of the body, therefore, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out against them. Moreover, appellants had got examined Dr. Rekha Maheshwari as DW-1, who had stated in her deposition that injury caused to victim was dangerous to life. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants.
9. Appellants had also raised grounds in appeal that there is major omission and contradiction in the version of the witnesses, which makes them incredible. This was only a general statement made at the bar and in appeal also, there is no pleadings that what omission and contradiction 7 CRA 3352/2015 makes the statement of PW-4 Chandrapal Singh, PW-5 Uttam Singh Parmar and PW-8 Brijendra Pratap Singh incredible. In view of same, there is no force in arguments that witnesses PW-4 Chandrapal Singh, PW-5 Uttam Singh Parmar and PW-8 Brijendra Pratap Singh are incredible.
10. After going through the evidence, which is available in the case and evidence collected by prosecution, prosecution has clearly brought home the guilt of appellants in committing offence under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act against appellants No.1 and 2. Eye witnesses and victim have also stated against the appellants. Said witnesses are reliable. Injury which was found on the head of victim was found to be dangerous to life by treating doctor i.e. Dr. Rekha Maheshwari (DW-1). In such circumstances, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court. Appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.
11. Appellant No.1 Jitendra Singh @ Hakke Munna and appellant No.3 Harbindra Singh @ Raju are on bail. They be committed to jail for serving rest of the sentence. Fine, if already not deposited, be deposited as per the judgment of the trial Court.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI VINOD KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=502f56362111056e3584ca82279e5efd816766cb7c5a1f4 TIWARI 90a5ca63b1116883f, pseudonym=064375E039EECAAF492B2C2C606076E420E163D2, serialNumber=121D0E9F65C983AD56493378702622477111B501 6F24D35FA8A76C2CA46685EE, cn=VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2022.06.17 17:10:51 +05'30'