Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khait Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2018
Author: Sushil Kumar Palo
Bench: Sushil Kumar Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. Cr.A. No. 1591/2005
Parties Name Khait Singh
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Judgment/Order 15/03/18
Bench Constituted Division Bench
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Palo
Whether approved for reporting Yes/No.
Name of counsels for parties Appellant: Shri Vikesh Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant.
Respondent: Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned
G.A for the respondent/State.
Law laid down
Significant paragraph numbers
JUDGMENT
As Per S.K. Palo, J :
The appellant- Khait Singh, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2005 passed by A.S.J, Lakhnadon, Distt. Seoni, in S.T. No. 59/05 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced for life imprisonment, has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.
2. It is not disputed that Bakhtu (PW 3) is the father of the appellant. Kanti Bai (PW 4) is the sister-in-law of the appellant. Deceased- Rama Bai was the mother of Bakhtu Singh (PW 3) and grand mother of appellant. On 28.02.2005 at about 5.00 pm, Rama Bai died in her house. The appellant who is the resident of Karhaiya Bara Tola, Police Station Kindarai. Dharam Singh (PW 1) is the son of village kotwar.
-:- 2 -:-
Cr.A No. 1591 of 20053. The prosecution story in brief is that the appellant- Khet Singh was residing with his grand mother Rama Bai. Rama Bai used to receive pension from the government every month. Kalia Bai used to deliver the pension to Rama Bai. The pension of December, 2004 was to be delivered to Rama Bai. On 26.02.2005, Kalia Bai handed over this amount to the appellant- Khait Singh to deliver it to Rama Bai. When Rama Bai demanded this amount, appellant- Khait Singh had a quarrel with her. Because of this appellant- Khait Singh inflicted injury by means of "Hasia" (sickle) and caused the death of Rama Bai. When Kanti Bai (PW 4) tried to save her, the appellant also ran after her. Hence, she ran to the field and informed the incident to Bakhtu (PW 3) her father-in-law. Bakhtu (PW 3) came to the house and saw the dead body of his mother. He then went to the Kotwar to inform about the incident. Because it was late and it became night, therefore, son of Kotwar Dharam Singh (PW 1) lodged report on the next day i.e. on 01.03.2005.
4. Police Kindarai lodged Crime No. 5/05 for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C at 10.45 am. The report Ex. P/2, Merg Intimation 1/05 Ex.P/1 lodged. After reaching the place of incidence, notice Ex. P/3 was given to the witnesses. In presence of the witnesses, Panchnama Ex. P/4 was drawn. By requisition Ex. P/17, the dead body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem report Ex. P/14 has been received. Deceased died due to shock as a result of haemorrhage. Spot map Ex. P/16 was prepared. Blood stained soil and normal soil have been seized by Ex.P/7. The photographs of the dead body is Ex. P/24 to P/39. After arrest of the appellant, memorandum Ex. P/6 was prepared and on the basis of memorandum, sickle has been seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/5). The clothes of accused has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/8). The clothes of the deceased handed over to the police by the hospital authorities are seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/3). The spot map Ex. P/13 has been prepared by the Patwari. The sickle was sent to the hospital for the examination by the medical officer.
-:- 3 -:-
Cr.A No. 1591 of 20055. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded false implication.
6. After examining the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court passed the judgment impugned holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced the appellant as stated above.
7. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the findings of the Court below are contrary to law and the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the offence. The witnesses have been declared hostile and they have not supported the version of the prosecution. The learned Court failed to consider the necessary ingredients to prove the offence.
8. Learned G.A for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that death of Rama Bai has been caused by sharp cutting instrument. The opinion of the medical officer that the injuries could have been caused by the sickle which was seized from the appellant and the circumstances cumulatively proved the offence against the appellant.
9. According to the post mortem report Ex. P/14 dated 01.03.2005, it has been revealed that the cause of death is shock due to haemorrhage. The report indicates four injuries caused to the deceased as follows:-
(i) A lacerated wound over front of right side of head;
(ii) An incised wound of 3x1 cm on the medial to the previous wound;
(iii) An incised wound of 2x2 cm over left side of front of head near hair line;
(iv) An incised wound of 5x2 cm over central part of right hand.
10. The medical officer vide Ex. P/15 after examining the iron sickle has opined that this injury could have been caused by the weapon seized from the appellant.
11. It would be appropriate to examine whether the said injury has been caused by the appellant which resulted the death of Rama Bai. Kanti Bai (PW 4) is the sister-in-law of the appellant. According to her Rama Bai was mother of her father-in-law. She has been declared hostile, for she did
-:- 4 -:-
Cr.A No. 1591 of 2005not support the prosecution story. According to her, the appellant is her brother-in-law. She has not seen any incident. She admits that her father-in- law has two houses. In one house, she, her husband and the appellant are living. In the second house, her father-in-law and family of another brother- in-law are residing. Rama Bai was living with the appellant. In one part of the house this witness is sharing.
12. Bakhtu (PW 3), the father of the appellant, has also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story though he was allowed to be asked leading questions which could be asked in the cross-examination but he did not support the whole prosecution story. He has admitted that he had gone to the Kotwar to inform about the incident and the son of Kotwar Dharam Singh (PW 1) had come to his house to see the spot.
13. Dharam Singh (PW 1) has been examined by the prosecution. According to Dharam Singh (PW 1), it was about four and half months ago, Bakhtu (PW 3), the father of appellant, had come to his house and informed that his son, the appellant, had killed his grand mother by means of a sickle. The dead body is lying on the parchhi. He further states that when he came to the house of Bakhtu (PW 1), he saw the dead body of Rama Bai who had sustained injuries. There were several wounds on her head and hand. Kanti Bai (PW 4) was also present there. Kanti Bai (PW 4) informed him that the appellant was causing injuries to the deceased by sickle. When she tried to save her, the appellant- Khait Singh ran after her. Hence, she fled away from the spot and went to the field. She then informed Bakhtu (PW 3) about the incident. When Dharam Singh (PW 1) came to the scene of crime, he found Trilok, Bakhtu. According to him, he went to Sarpanch Ganaram (PW 2) and informed him about the incident. Ganaram (PW 2), the Sarpanch of the village states that on the same day in the evening, he received the information from the son of Kotwar Dharam Singh (PW 1) and asked to go to Kindarai to lodge the report. He told him that it has become dark and there is chances of heavy rain. Therefore, let us inform the police by telephone. They went 5 kms. to village Sarra and from there tried to contact the police by telephone but the call could not materialize.
-:- 5 -:-
Cr.A No. 1591 of 2005Therefore, he asked the son of Kotwar- Dharam Singh to lodge the report on the next date. On the next date, he went with the Kotwar to the Police Station Kindarai. Along with police, they came to the village. At that time, the appellant was present at the house. When police asked the appellant about the incident, he started crying and in front of police, he stated that he could not know how he killed his grand mother. The appellant as informed the police that he caused death by means of sickle.
14. Asharam (PW 5) is the Secretary of Panchayat Sara who had sent Kalia Bai to hand over the pension to Rama Bai, the deceased. When Kalia Bai could not found Rama Bai, she handed over the amount to the appellant. The record of the pension are Ex. P/12 which were seized by police vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11).
15. Shri M.D. Nagotia (PW 8), is the Investigating Officer of Police station Kindarai at the relevant time. He lodged the report Ex. P/2 and, subsequently, merg intimation Ex. P/1. The Panchanama Ex. P/4 was drawn and the dead body was sent for post mortem by preparing Ex. P/17.
16. At the instance of the appellant vide memorandum Ex. P/6, sickle was found and the same has been seized by Ex.P/5. The blood stained soil and the normal soil were seized by Ex. P/7. The blood stained clothes of the appellant, which he was wearing at the time of incidence have also been seized by Ex. P/8. The accused was arrested vide Ex. P/18 (arrest memo). The property seized were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. The blood on the sickle was found, was insufficient for test, whereas the blood stained soil, the blouse and sari of the deceased E 1, E 2 were found to be of human blood.
17. Kanti Bai (PW 4) is the sister-in-law of appellant and Bakhtu (PW 3) is the father of the appellant. They did not support the prosecution story which is but obvious. The statements of the witnesses and the documents invariably show that the deceased was living with the appellant. The pension amount of Rs.150/- was received by the appellant on behalf of Rama Bai. The deceased- Rama Bai was found dead in the house, where
-:- 6 -:-
Cr.A No. 1591 of 2005she was living with the appellant. The injuries caused to the deceased were caused by sickle.
18. Dharam Singh (PW 1) is an independent witness. He is the son of Kotwar. Therefore, reliance can be placed on his statement. According to him, Kanti Bai informed him that she saw the appellant causing injuries to the deceased by sickle. When she tried to save her, the appellant ran after her. Therefore, she fled away from the spot.
19. Ganaram (PW 2) has not supported the prosecution story but the statements of Dharam Singh (PW 1) and Ganaram (PW 2) clearly indicated that the incident took place in the house of the appellant. At the instance of the appellant, the sickle was seized which was found stained with blood. If the whole circumstances considered cumulatively, specially when the appellant has not offered any explanation how Rama Bai sustained such injuries, even though Bakhtu and Kanti Bai have not supported the prosecution story, it would be appropriate to hold that the appellant has caused the injuries for there was a dispute of payment of pension amount. The statements of Dharam Singh (PW 2), the medical evidence and the F.S.L report cannot be brushed aside.
20. Keeping in view the injuries which are lacerated wound and incised wound, it seems that the appellant did not premeditate in committing such offence. When there was tussle between the appellant and his grand mother, suddenly the appellant inflicted injuries to his grand mother by means of sickle which is easily available in the house of every village.
21. The act, by which the death is caused, is done with the intention of causing death or of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Two of the injuries were on the head and one injury was found on the hand of the deceased- Rama Bai, who was 82 years.
22. The appellants caused the injuries without premeditation. Therefore, it would be appropriate to convict the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for there was no previous enmity. There was no prior preparation. They quarreled over the possession of the pension
-:- 7 -:-
Cr.A No. 1591 of 2005amount and because of this dispute, the appellant mercilessly beaten the deceased without any justification. In these circumstances, the guilt of the appellant has been proved. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C is set aside.
23. The appellant is convicted for offence under Section 304 (1) of I.P.C and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in lieu of fine, he has to undergo additional sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is also given the benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The period of custody undergone be set off from the period of sentence.
24. A copy of judgment be sent immediately along with the record to the trial Court for drawing supersession warrant.
(Sujoy Paul) (Sushil Kumar Palo)
Judge Judge
awinash/
Digitally signed by AWINASH
CHANDRA
Date: 2018.03.15 10:32:22
+05'30'