Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan Lodhi vs The State Of M.P. on 22 September, 2017
Author: Sushil Kumar Palo
Bench: Sushil Kumar Palo
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Cr.A. No. 1655 OF 2004
Chandan
Vs.
The State of M.P.
*****
Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Asim Dixit, learned G.A. for respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Present:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar Palo ----------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(22.09.2017) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Chandan (Baba) under Section 347 (2) of Cr.P.C challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th August, 2004 passed by Special Judge, Sagar under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (for brevity âÂÂthe Act, 1989âÂÂ) in Special Session Trial No. 131/2003 wherein the appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P.C and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.200/- and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of fine simple imprisonment for one month for each offence.
2 It is not disputed that the appellant is âÂÂLodhiâ by caste. It is also admitted that he inflicted only one injury to the deceased- Alam by means of a stone on the face. He has admitted that deceased- Alam had come to him in the night. He slapped the appellant 3-4 times and demanded money, hence, he inflicted injury by means of stones. He also admits that he has cleaned the blood stained in the temple. He further admits that he disclosed to the police about the stone. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has stated that in the night, a person had come to the temple. He performed Puja. The appellant prepared roti and gave to him and the person had eaten the same. The person inflicted 3-4 slaps to the appellant and demanded money. The appellant caused one injury by means of a stone on the face of that person who fell down. The appellant then dragged the person to the railway track from the temple and returned to the temple, leaving the injured there. He washed blood stains in the temple. Later, he came to know that the name of the person was Alam. Because he slapped to the appellant, the appellant inflicted injury by means of a stone.
3 The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.03.2003 , a dead body was found near the Mohansa Railway Station. Station Master Narayan Yadav (PW 1) intimated this to General Railway Police Station (G.R.P), Bina that a dead body is found near the railway track. Merg was lodged. Head Constable Ajay Shrivastava (PW 15) seized the clothes of the deceased and identified the dead body through his son Ramsevak (PW 6) that it is the dead body of Alam Ahirwar. Witnesses were summoned for preparing last panchnama. After panchnama was drawn, the dead body was sent for postmortem. Death was caused due to shock as a result of several severe injuries. Crime was registered at Police Station, Bina and the same was transferred to Police Station Bhangarh. Police Station, Bhangarh after due investigation filed the charge sheet. The blood stained stone, rope and other items were seized at the instance of the appellant.
4 Learned Special Court affirmed the charges for offences under Sections 3 (2) (5) of âÂÂthe Act, 1989â and under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C.
5 After adducing evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 3 (2) (5) of âÂÂthe Act, 1989â but convicted him for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C and sentenced as stated above.
6 The appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is bad in the eyes of law. The trial Court has passed the sentence without any legal evidence. The trial Court failed to see that the statements of the witnesses are hearsay and on the basis of these statements, conviction has been arrived at. The recovery made from the appellant on the memorandum and extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the police are not legal evidence to prove the case.
7 The post mortem of the dead body Alam was conducted by a team of Doctors which includes Dr. A.K. Jain (PW 16). According to him, he along with a team of Doctors examined the dead body and prepared the postmortem report Ex. P/18. Cause of death is shock due to multiple extensive injuries. According to the medical officer the deceased has received following injuries.:-
(I) Head amputated from lower part of neck and detached. Blackish dried up material is present over the wound margins (Postmortem). Few pieces of skull bones attached skin and hair present along with the body.
(II) Compound dislocation at right elbow 4x5 cm. Bones exposed dried up at blood.
(III) Left Upper Limb- Amputated at shoulder, no blood staining.
(IV) Left Lower Limb- Amputated at Upper most thigh. No blood at wound margins (Run over injury). (V) Right Lower Limb- Amputated at mid thigh. Part of femur exposed. No blood at wound margins (plm). (VI) Multiple Friction abrasion. Lt. Upper back about 20x30 cm (Ante mortem).
(VII) Well defined Loss of skin above left. (VIII) Both leg parts along with feet were also present along with the body.
(IX) Contusion over. Ant. Part of chest wall wall 15x20 cm (Ante mortem).
X. The amputated injuries have occurred by run over at the railway track, other injuries have occurred by hard and blunt object.
8 The injuries indicate that deceased sustained several ante mortem injuries and was run over by train in the railway track and sustained these injuries because of which he died.
9 It is necessary to examine whether the appellant is responsible for causing the ante mortem injuries?
10 Kashi Bai (PW 2) is the wife of deceased- Alam Ahirwar. According to her, Alam Ahirwar asked her to prepare a âÂÂseedhaâÂÂ(a portion of food materials including pulses and cash are given to a Brahman as gift) so that he can go Patkua temple. She prepared the same and left for the field. Her husband did not return in the night. On the following day, she told her son Ramsevak (PW 6), that his father has not returned home. Shobha Ram (PW 7) had come to her house and asked her, what dress was worn by Alam. When she explained the same, Shobha Ram (PW 7) intimated her that the accused Chandan inflicted injury to Alam and the dead body of Alam was found in the railway track.
11 Shobha Ram (PW 7) has explained that it was Rangpanchmi day. Ram Sevak (PW 6) had come to him and informed that his father- Alam had gone to the appellant at village Patkua, to give the âÂÂseedhaâ but he did not return, therefore, he accompanied Ramsevak (PW 6) to village Patkua. They met the appellant at the village temple. Ramsevak (PW 6) asked the appellant that his father had come to him for giving the âÂÂseedha.â 12 Shobha Ram (PW 7) and Ramsevak (PW 6) then went to the railway gate. Some of the railway employees were speaking to each other that a dead body has been found near the Patkua Pulia. Shobha Ram (PW 7) and Ramsevak (PW 6) went to see the dead body, when they saw the dead body lying up side down. Legs of the dead body were amputated. Ramsevak (PW 6) recognized it to be the dead body of his father. There was blood on the railway track. They also saw stains of blood is traced towards the temple. There was a rope which is used for pulling water from the well stained with blood. They went to the temple but appellant was nowhere found. Ramsevak (PW 6) stayed with the dead body. Shobha Ram (PW 7) returned to the village and narrated the incident to the villagers.
13 Ramsevak (PW 6) has supported the version of Shobharam (PW 7). He received the notice Ex. P/3. Police prepared panchnama Ex. P/4 and the identification panchnama Ex. P/5. Sukhlal (PW 3) is another witness, who is the brother of deceased Alam. According to him, the appellant called Alam with âÂÂseedha.â Alam had gone to give the âÂÂseedhaâ but did not return. Ramsevak (PW 6) and Shobharam (PW 7) had gone to search for Alam. They informed him about the death of Alam on the railway track. He along with Chittar and others went to the railway track with the help of the tractor. They saw the dead body. They also saw the blood stains leading towards the temple. The stone stained with blood was also found near the Chabutra of the temple. The appellant was caught. 25 to 30 people gathered there. The appellant was shouting that he has killed one and he will kill two to four more. Police had come to the temple at 3-4 pm. The statement of Ramsevak (PW 6) and Shobharam (PW 7) and Sukhlal (PW 3) if cumulatively examined along with admissions made by the appellant reveal that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant inflicted injury on the face of deceased because of which he might have fallen unconscious. Alam was then dragged to the railway track and left there. Subsequently, the deceased might have received the injuries of a running train and died. The condition of the dead body found in the medical report indicates that the amputation were caused because of the running of a train over the body.
14 The extra judicial confession is not a strong evidence but the appellant having made the admissions in his examination under Section 3 (1) (3) of the Cr.P.C cannot be over looked.
15 An âÂÂadmissionâ is a statement of fact oral or document, which enables the Court to draw an inference as to any fact, any issue or relevant fact. It is trite to say that every confession must necessarily be an admission but every admission does not necessarily amount to a confession. Having said so, if the extra judicial confessions, are not taken to be admissible even then the admissions made by the appellant in the examination of accused is sufficient to correct the prosecution story. Admission is based on evidence. The extra judicial confession earlier made, if at all, presumed to be induced or made by police but the admission in the statement of accused is itself clear and unambiguous. Admissions were never made under threat, therefore, the same can be believed. There is no statutory inhibition for using the extra judicial confession or the admission on the premises.
16 On these premises, the conviction of the learned trial Court does not seems to be suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Therefore, it does not call for any interference.
17 The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th August, 2004 is, therefore, maintained. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is also maintained.
18 This appeal is dismissed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) (NANDITA DUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
awinash