Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Parwat Singh And Others on 3 May, 2018
Author: Ashok Kumar Joshi
Bench: Ashok Kumar Joshi
Cr.A.336/2001 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(DB : SANJAY YADAV & ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, JJ.
Cr.A. No. 336/2001
State of MP through Police Station Jamner, District Guna
---Appellant
Vs.
Parvat Singh & thirteen others
---Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Shri B.K.Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the
appellant-State.
Shri R.K.Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents.
_________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
( 03 / 05 /2018 ) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, J.
Appellant/State has challenged this appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. to the acquittal of respondents recorded by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna vide judgment dated 28.11.2000 passed in S.T. No. 327/1998. By impugned judgment respondents have been acquitted from the charge of Sections 302, 302/149, 147, 148 and 201 of IPC.
2. Undisputedly, the prosecution witnesses, Bahadur Singh (PW-2) and Chhatar Singh (PW-6) are sons of deceased Shankarlal and Asharam (PW-19) is brother-in- law of deceased Shankarlal and deceased Shankarlal, Bhadur Singh (PW-2), Phool Singh (PW-3), Chhatar Singh Cr.A.336/2001 2 (PW-6) and all respondents are resident of village Mahuakheda, Thana Jamner.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 13.05.1998, complainant Bahadur Singh (PW-2) with his brother Chhatar Singh (PW-6) lodged marg intimation (ExP-2) to the effect that on 09.05.1998, their father had gone to village Baniatodi to attend the marriage at the house of Asharam (PW-19), but his father had not returned on 9.5.2018, then they understood that their father might have gone in barat and thereafter on Monday Bahadur Singh and Chhatar Singh went to village Baniatodi and searched their father, then they were informed that their father Shankarlal had not gone in barat of relating marriage. Thereafter, their father was searched, but nothing could be traced out. On 13.05.1998, when complainant and his brother were searching their father, then at the bank of river Parwati, nearer to the edge, dead body of their father was found and the leg of dead body was tied with saffa. On the basis of marg report (ExP-2), Dehati Nalishi (ExP-20) was recorded on 14.5. 1998 at police outpost, Ukkavad and then on the basis of this, FIR (ExP-10) was registered at police station Jamner. During investigation it reveals that present respondents have killed Shankarlal due to prior enmity. Inquest memo (ExP-3) was prepared and three stones were seized from the dead body vide seizure memo (ExP-4) and the dead body was sent for postmortem and the postmortem reports ExP-28 and P-29 were received. The clothes found on dead body was seized vide seizure memo ExP-
9. Thereafter, after arrest of respondent Bholeram on the basis of his disclosure statement (ExP-7), a farsa was seized vide seizure memo ExP-8, on the basis of disclosure statement (ExP-17) of respondent Srikrishna a farsa was seized vide seizure memo ExP-14, on the basis Cr.A.336/2001 3 of disclosure statement (ExP-18) of respondent Parvat Singh, one karpa was seized vide seizure memo (ExP-15). Similarly, on the basis of disclosure statement (ExP-19) of respondent Ramnarayan, one karpa was seized vide seizure memo (ExP-16). One stick separately was seized from respondents Govindi, Hazari and Sardar vide separate seizure memos. Copy of previously lodged different reports by Shankarlal and his family against respondents (Ex-P-25 to to P-27) were also tagged with the charge sheet.
4. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed and after committal of the relating criminal case, arisen sessions trial was transferred by Sessions Judge to above mentioned trial Court. Charges were framed against each respondent under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 and 201 of IPC. It was the defence of respondents that they have been falsely implicated due to prior enmity.
5. It would be significant to mention here that by a PUD received from District Judge, Guna, it was intimated that record of relating sessions trial has been eliminated on 8.6.2007 and this fact has been mentioned in order sheet dated 9.4.2008 of this appeal and thereafter copies of deposition sheets of prosecution witnesses were filed by the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant/State and after perusal of relating photocopies of certified copies of depositions, this judgment is being passed.
6. Appearing counsel on behalf of appellant/State vehemently contended that charged offences were proved against each respondent, but the trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents from the charged offences, hence it is prayed that appeal be allowed and each respondent be convicted and properly sentenced for the Cr.A.336/2001 4 charges framed against them by the trial Court.
7. Per contra, appearing counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned judgment contends that the trial Court has properly and legally appreciated and analyzed the entire evidence available on record and not committed any error in acquitting each respondent. It was clear from the evidence of Dr.Geeetarani Gupta (PW-
20) that at the time of starting of postmortem, the received dead body was found in advanced stage of putrefaction and the dead body was kept in a potli and the skin of whole body was peeling and eyes, penis, scrota of deceased male were eaten by insects and tibia and fibula of right leg found fractured and bad smell was coming out and it was found that the deceased had died due to asphyxia as the clothe was found inserted in the mouth of the deceased. In the opinion of doctor, mode of death was homicidal and deceased died within five to ten days from starting postmortem.
8. Before trial Court, Phool Singh (PW-3) and Mangilal (PW-7) gave their evidence as eye witnesses. Phool Singh (PW-3) deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to eat food in the programme of marriage at the house of Asharam and deceased Shankarlal, resident of his village was also present there and in the night when he saw that Shankarlal and Parvat were returning from Baniatodi to Mahuakheda, then in the way near a well of Mohanlal, the respondents met them armed with sticks, karpa and farsi, who were hide in the bushes and the respondents gathered Shankarlal, then he fled away and reached to village Baniatodi and in the night he slept with Jai Singh Patel and Karan Singh and later-on he knew that Shankarlal's dead bold was found in Parwati river, but he did not know who had killed Shankarlal. Phool Singh also deposed that respondents Srikant, Cr.A.336/2001 5 Parvat and Ramnarayan had gathered him and took him to the hill of Durgapura and tied him with a tree. Thereafter, police freed him but he did not know why the respondents have tied him. Phool Singh (PW-3) was declared hostile by the prosecution. In para 8 he deposed that police called him on several occasions, but due to fear he was wandering here and there because he feared that respondent would kill him. Phool Singh clearly deposed in para 14 that he did not give any police statement during investigation, in para 15 he deposed that he was much frightened but his fear disappeared only after police met him, then his fear automatically vanished. In para 16, Phool Singh deposed that even after recovery of dead body of Shankarlal from Parwati rifer, he did not go to inform police regarding the fact that in the night of the incident deceased Shankarlal was with him. In para 18, he deposed that police kept him at the police out post, Ukkavad continuously for 4 to 5 days and on the fifth day an officer came from jeep and told SHO that he be released and now he will give statement. In para 21, Phool Singh deposed that after the incident when he met the people of his village, he did not inform any one about the incident.
9. Mangilal (PW-7) deposed before the trial Court that about eleven months prior he had attended the marriage function of Ahsaram Lodhi's son at Baniatodi, where a dancer was dancing and Shankarlal, Phool Singh, and Karan Singh also attended that marriage and in that marriage Shankarlal and Phool Singh informed him that they are going to Mahuakheda and he stayed in the marriage for enjoying the dance, but Shankarlal and Phool Singh have returned to Mahuakheda. Mangilal deposed that after waiting some time he thought that Shankarlal would met in the way, hence he rapidly Cr.A.336/2001 6 proceeded towards Mahuakheda and when he reached nearer to a well of Mohanlal, then he saw that all respondents were beating Shankarlal by lathis and farsas and he saw the incident by hiding himself behind a tree. Thereafter, he saw that the respondents were proceeding towards parwati river after lifting Shankarlal, but due to fear of respondents he fled away and reached to his house. Mangilal deposed that the incident of beating of Shankarlal had occurred in the night at about 8-10 PM and Shankarlal was having prior enmity with the respondents, as respondents had beaten Shankarlal and his wife. When Shankarlal's body was recovered from Parwati river, then he signed on inquest memo (ExP-3) and at that time he saw that the dead body was tied up in a bag with stones weighing about fifty kilograms.
10. Mangilal (PW-7) deposed in cross-examination that Shankarlal was his father-in-law as Shankarlal's daughter Moharbai was married to him about forty years ago and he was not having any dispute with his father-in-law, but on the date when inquest memo was prepared then he did not tell anything to the sons of Shankarlal and he fled away, hence did not disclose the incident to police for a period of ten days and he did not tell anything to his house and the village. After eight days when he reached the police out post with Bahadur Singh and Chhatar Singh then narrated police about the incident. He also deposed in para 8 that he reached the house of deceased, where sons of deceased, namely Bahadur Singh and Chhatar Singh told him that it is not known who had killed their father, but Bahadur Singh and Chhatar Singh were suspecting that as respondents are having enmity with their family, they could have killed their father. He told Bahadur Singh and Chhatar Singh that he will gave evidence, then Bahadur Singh and Cr.A.336/2001 7 Chhatar Singh took him to police out post and there he intimated to police that he had seen the incident. In para 12, Mangilal deposed that inquest memo was prepared about four days after the incident witnessed by him, but in para 12 he also deposed that at the time of preparing inquest memo he had disclosed all the facts to police, but in the next breath he deposed that after seeing beating of his father-in-law, eight days later he intimated police first time about the incident. In para 15, he deposed that in the night of incident after reaching his house at village Telegaon he has intimated his wife about the incident witnessed by him but admitted in next breath that this fact was not even disclosed by him to police that in the night of date of incident he had informed his wife about the incident. In para 16, Mangilal deposed that on the third day after missing of his father-in-law, Bahadur Singh and Chhatar Singh came to his house by searching their father, then he had intimated the whole incident to them.
11. It is clear that the evidence of Phool Singh (PW-3) and Mangilal (PW-7) is full of self contradictory statements. Mangilal is a near relative of deceased and his conduct appearing from his evidence totally appears to be unnatural and unbelievable. He is a panch witness of inquest memo, but it is clear that on the date when inquest memo was prepared he did not disclose anything to police or any one. Both these witnesses have made unbelievable exaggerations in their depositions. The conduct of both these alleged eye witnesses appears to be totally unbelievable and unnatural.
12. We are of the considered opinion that the trial Court in its judgment has minutely discussed the total evidence in the light of so many referred citations. It is clear from the impugned judgment that Phool Singh (PW-3) in his police statement twenty two days after the incident Cr.A.336/2001 8 though deposed that prior to it police kept him continuously at police out post. It is also clear from the impugned judgment that the police statement of Mangilal (PW-7) was recorded on 25.5.1999, i.e., after seventeen days after the incident.
13. We are also of the considered opinion that the trial Court has properly and legally analyzed the entire evidence available on record and the view taken by the trial Court regarding not placing reliance on such eye witnesses, who were appearing to be planted witnesses could not be considered as perverse or impossible finding. It is well settled legal position that scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is very limited and in our considered opinion the judgment of trial Court is not suffering from any such perversity which could provide an occasion for re-appreciation of the entire evidence. The criminal appeal filed by the State appears to be totally meritless.
14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of present respondents is hereby dismissed and the acquittal of each respondent is affirmed.
15. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of seized property is also maintained.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Judge vv Digitally signed by VALSALA VASUDEVAN Date: 2018.05.05 11:39:10 -07'00'