Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Manoj Sahu on 1 December, 2016
Bench: N.K. Gupta, G.S. Ahluwalia
1 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Division Bench
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2008
State of Madhya Pradesh
-Vs-
Manoj Sahu and others
For the State/appellant : Shri J.M. Sahani, Panel Lawyer.
For the respondents : Shri Raghuvir Singh, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
(01/12/2016) PER JUSTICE N.K. GUPTA:
The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 31.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha in S.T. No.57/2006 whereby each of the respondents has been acquitted from the charge of Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 26.10.2005, the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand was travelling in Village Gamakhar from his house to house of someone else. On the way, the respondents having sticks and lathis stopped him. The respondents asked as to why he has lodged the report against them and thereafter the quarrel started. The respondents assaulted him with lathis and sticks. The deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand went to the police station Basoda for lodging the FIR alongwith Chowkidar Dablu Khangar. He was sent for his medico-legal examination. Looking to his condition, he was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. However, on 21.12.2005, he was expired. Body of the deceased Buntu @ 2 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008 Prem Chand was sent for postmortem and thereafter on due investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Vidisha and ultimately it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjbasoda.
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They did not adduce any defence evidence.
4. After considering the prosecution evidence, the trial court convicted each of the respondents of offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC but acquitted them for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In the present case, it is to be decided as to whether the deceased died due to the injuries caused in the incident dated 26.10.2005. It is apparent from the record that initially Buntu @ Prem Chand was examined by Dr. P.K. Jain (P.W.4) who gave his MLC report Exhibit P-5. He found as many as fifteen injuries on the body of the deceased but he has categorically denied that there was any injury on front or back of the head of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand. In query report, his denial was informed to the police. It is apparent that the deceased died in the month of December and Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (P.W.3) had performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand. Postmortem report Exhibit P-4 was prepared by Dr. Neelam Shrivastava. She gave description of various injuries. According to her, the deceased died due to the head injury. The date of incident and the date of death of the deceased are different. There is a time span of approximately seven weeks. When Dr. P.K. Jain (P.W.4) did not find any head injury to the deceased then prima-facie it could not be said that the deceased had died due to the injuries caused by the respondents in the incident. At present, the appeal filed by the respondents for their conviction under Section 307 of IPC is pending, therefore, it is not required in the present appeal to discuss the evidence of assailants etc. The prosecution has tried to fill up the gap between the aforesaid time period.
3 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008
7. Dr. Pankaj Agrawal (P.W.5) gave his report (Exhibit P-8) being in-charge of Parul Hospital, Bhopal that the condition of the deceased was bad due to his head injury. If report Exhibit P-8 is examined then it was given on 29.10.2005 i.e., approximately three days after the incident. The report was dependent upon the scan report Exhibit P-14 proved by Dr. Rajesh Mehra (P.W.9). According to Dr. Rajesh Mehra, there was a displaced fracture on right temporal parietal region of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand and such scan was taken on 27.10.2005. Though, Dr. Pankaj Agrawal did not supply the treatment papers of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand to show that his certificate was genuine. On perusal of scan report (Exhibit P-
14), which is proved by Dr. Rajesh Mehra (P.W.9), it is proved that on 27.10.2005, it was found that the deceased sustained a fracture on his head caused at right temporal parietal region and also there was a diffuse cerebral edema, hence, the certificate given by Dr. Pankaj Agrawal may also be accepted.
8. According to Dr. P.K. Jain (P.W.4), he recorded fifteen injuries but, there was no injury on the head of the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand, otherwise, he would have mentioned that injury whereas Dr. Rajesh Mehra found a fracture on right temporal parietal region of the deceased on 27.10.2005. In this connection, the opinion given by Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (P.W.3) is important, that the deceased died due to head injury. It was for the prosecution to prove that head injury was caused in the incident. The deceased was taken to Hamidia Hospital for treatment but it is not established by the prosecution that what was the opinion of doctors of Hamidia Hospital who examined the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand, when he was referred by Dr. Pankaj Agrawal. There is a time gap between 26.10.2005 and 29.10.2005 while the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand was transported in the ambulance and thereafter he was taken to Hamidia Hospital and, thereafter to the private hospital. It is possible that due to mishandling by the attendants etc., he would have sustained his head injury and, therefore, on the basis of MLC report (Exhibit P-5) as prepared by Dr. P.K. Jain, it is clear that the 4 Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2008 deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand did not sustain any head injury during the incident and when head injury was not caused to the deceased then it cannot be said that death was caused due to the respondents who assaulted him on the date of incident.
9. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, when the prosecution could not prove that the deceased Buntu @ Prem Chand died due to injury which was caused in the incident, then the trial court had rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 302 of IPC because cause of death of deceased could not be connected with the overt act of the respondents.
10. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the said appeal and no interference can be done in the judgment of the trial court relating to acquittal of the respondents from the charge of Section 302/34 of IPC. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed.
11. Copy of the judgment be sent to the court below for information whereas record of the trial court be annexed in Criminal Appeal No.701/2007.
(N.K. GUPTA) (G.S.Ahluwalia)
Judge Judge
(01.12.2016) (01.12.2016)
(ra)