Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju Burman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2015
CRA-217-2015
(RAJU BURMAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
29-04-2015
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No. 1235/2015, which is first application under Section 389 (1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of appellant Golu @ Bhupendra for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of this appeal.
Vide the impugned judgment, appellant Golu and his father/co- appellant Raju have been found guilty of committing murder of Anurag by causing multiple injuries with Bakka (a sharp edged weapon) and Lathi.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on fateful day of 26.01.2013, Anurag (since deceased) with his wife Soma (PW-2) had stayed in their poultry farm, which is situated near about 12 km. away from village Basa. On that day, at about 9 to 10 p.m., appellant Golu, co-appellant Raju and juvenile delinquent Sukhchain @ Kitty came to the farm. At that time, appellant Golu and co-appellant Raju were equipped with a Lathi and a Bakka respectively. They and the juvenile delinquent started beating the deceased, saying that he does not give them chickens free of cost on their demand. Hearing the screams, Rameshwar (PW-1), who was at that time the Chowkidar of the farm and who was in his quarter and Soma came to the place of occurrence. They saw that appellant Golu and co-appellant Raju and the juvenile delinquent committing marpeet with the deceased with Lathis and Bakka. When Rameshwar made an attempt to save the deceased, co- appellant Raju inflicted a blow of Bakka upon him. As a result, he sustained injury in his left hand. In the meantime, Hari (PW-6), who is brother of Rameshwar, also came to the place of occurrence. He also saw them committing marpeet with the deceased. Having committed marpeet with death deceased, the appellants and the juvenile delinquent ran away. Soma informed her relative Sanjay (PW-4) the incident on mobile. He with police force and others came to the spot. Rameshwar lodged an F.I.R. in the wee hours of 27.01.13. The FIR registered in the Dehati Nalsi Ex.P-1. The deceased was taken to the hospital for the treatment. However, the doctor declared that the deceased had been brought dead.
Learned counsel for appellant Golu submits that appellant Golu and his father/co-appellant Raju have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He further submits that at the time of incident, the age of appellant Golu was just above 19 years and he has been in jail since 27.01.13. There is no likelihood of this appeal being heard on merits in recent future as this appeal is of the year 2015. He also submits that informant Rameshwar (PW-1) and eye witness Hari (PW-6) have been declared hostile by the prosecution and Soma is concocted eye witness. Therefore, there is no eye witness of the incident. He also submits that as per the FIR Ex.P-1 appellant Golu committed marpeet with the deceased with Lathi, but autopsy surgeon Dr. Vivek Shrivastava (PW-7) has admitted in para 3 of his evidence that the deceased had not sustained any injury with Lathi. Thus, there is a material discrepancy between the eye witness account and the medical evidence. This discrepancy shows that appellant Golu had not committed marpeet with deceased with Lathi, therefore, he is wrongly convicted by the trial Court. In support of this contention, he has relied upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Jadu Yadav Vs. State of Bihar Law (SC)-1992-8-87. He also submits that there is no other evidence that connects appellant Golu with the murder of deceased. Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A. Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer. He submits that informant Rameshwar has given false evidence before the trial Court, which is proved by the evidence of Dr. G.D. Rawat (PW-3), who has medico legally examined him on the next date of incident. He has stated in his evidence that informant Rameshwar sustained injury in middle finger of his left hand with a sharp edged weapon. He has also proved his MLR Ex.P-5. Both the appellants and informant Rameshwar are residents of village Basa and he has admitted in para 9 of his statement that at the time of incident, co-appellant Raju was Sarpanch of the aforesaid village. Hence, it can be stated with certitude that he has not supported the prosecution case under the pressure of the natives of the aforesaid village and fear of the appellants. He submits that Soma has stated in para 8 of her evidence that her poultry farm is situated at the isolated place. Informant Rameshwar in para 7 has admitted that at the time of incident he had not got a mobile set. Sanjay (PW-4) has stated in his evidence that he reached the place of occurrence with the police after having heard about the incident from Soma on his mobile. The FIR Ex.P-1 was recorded at the place of occurrence. He submits that if the aforesaid evidence is read conjointly, the presence of Soma at the time of incident is proved otherwise the police and others would have not reached the place of occurrence just after the incident. Thus, she is a true eye witness. The defence has cross-examined her at length, but fail to discredit her evidence. She has categorically stated in her evidence that he saw appellant Golu, co-appellant Raju and the juvenile delinquent committing marpeet with her husband/the deceased. He submits that Dr. Vivek Shrivastava (PW-7) has stated in para 3 of his evidence that the deceased has not sustained any injury with the Lathi, but this fact does not absolve appellant Golu for the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased because his presence at the time of incident is proved by the evidence of Soma and he is convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
Having regard the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel and having perused the prosecution evidence in totality, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant Golu. Hence, the I.A. is rejected. List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SHANTANU KEMKAR) (RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
sp/-