Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babu Khan Judgement Given By: Hon'Ble ... on 6 February, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.13846/2012
06.02.2014
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the applicant-
State.
Heard on admission.
By the present application under Section 378(I)
of Cr.P.C., the State has sought for grant of leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No.200/2011
whereby the respondents were acquitted from the
charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
The prosecution case, in short, is that the deceased Sayda Khatoon consumed some poison on 11.2.2011 and she was taken to Birla Hospital, Satna. Ultimately she expired. After due postmortem etc., the body of the deceased was given to her relatives. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed which was committed to the Sessions Court.
The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea, but they have stated that they were not responsible for the death of the deceased Sayda Khatoon. In defence Shadik (DW-1) and Mustque (DW-2) were also examined.
The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the respondents.
After considering the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant-State, and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, it would be apparent that Taj Mohammed (PW-1), brother of the deceased, Asgar Khan (PW-5) husband of the deceased, Smt. Bakridan (PW-6), Smt. Shabana Khatoon (PW-14) were examined to prove the oral dying declaration of the deceased. However, all them have stated a different story about her dying declaration. It is admitted that there was a dispute of the property between Asgar Khan and the respondents. It was also apparent that Asgar Khan, who went to work at Delhi had already returned back two days prior to the death of the deceased. But he has stated that he went to the house of his aunt, and therefore at the time of the incident he was not in the house. Smt. Shabana Khatoon has stated that Rehana and Samsun administered the poison to the deceased whereas there was no case of the police that the deceased was murdered by someone else. Similarly, Smt. Shabana has stated that when the deceased was taken to Banda, she became conscious and thereafter she told the story of quarrel. But, looking to the prosecution evidence, the deceased was taken to Birla Hospital, Satna where she remained till her death. The story narrated by Smt. Shabana appears to be falsehood.
Similarly, Smt. Bakridan told that the deceased told her that a quarrel took place because the deceased threw some garbage on the property of the respondents, whereas it is not a case of Asgar Khan and Taj Mohammed. It would be apparent that the deceased was unconscious till she was admitted in the hospital, and therefore no dying declaration could be recorded. Under such circumstances, the claim of the witnesses that she became conscious for sometime appears to be incorrect. Taj Mohammed has stated that respondent Babu Khan told the persons to administer the poison to the deceased and thereafter poison was administered. On the contrary Asgar Khan has stated that the deceased was ready to consume poison, and therefore the respondents brought the poison and thereafter she consumed. Smt. Bakridan (PW-6) has stated in para 17 that the deceased Sayda told the respondents with anger to bring poison and she will consume and thereafter the poison was brought by Babu Khan and she consumed. All the witnesses have stated that the deceased gave her dying declaration at Banda, but no certificate of any hospital of Banda is produced before the trial Court to show that she was taken to any hospital at Banda or blood transfusion was given to her and thereafter she was conscious. Taj Mohammed has accepted that when the deceased was admitted in Satna Hospital, he gave one bottle blood to the deceased and thereafter she became conscious and told the story.
Under such circumstances, each of the witnesses Asgar, Taj Mohammed, Smt. Bakridan, Smt. Shabana are telling a new story, which is contradictory to the story told by each of them. It is nowhere clear that as to whether the deceased was conscious at Banda or Satna. No document relating to her treatment at Banda is submitted, therefore it appears that the deceased was not conscious for any moment, and hence the story of dying declaration given by these witnesses cannot be accepted. The possibility cannot be ruled out that Asgar Khan, husband of the deceased shifted his guilt towards the respondents when he had already returned from Delhi to his house. The possibility cannot be ruled out that his quarrel took place with his wife and thereafter he created a story with the help of other witnesses.
If it is accepted that there was a quarrel about the dispute of the land between the parties, then certainly that dispute should have been resolved by Asgar Khan and not by the deceased Sayda. It is strange that the respondents were harassing the deceased Sayda in absence of Asgar Khan and they were not telling the same thing to Asgar Khan, who was the husband of the deceased. If it is presumed that the incident as alleged by these witnesses is correct, then it is not at all proved that the respondents brought poison and handed over to the deceased. Secondly, if there was a quarrel relating to the property, then the same could be resolved by filing of a civil suit or other legal proceedings. There was no solution to consume poison due to that dispute. The alleged overt-acts of the respondents do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore even the allegations are presumed as such, then still no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the respondents.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the acquittal directed by the trial Court appears to be correct. There is no reason so that any interference can be done in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant-State under Section 378(I) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with the record for information.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari