Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamlesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2018
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1 Cr.A.No.1677/2008
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
DIVISION BENCH
Criminal Appeal No. 1677/2008
APPELLANT : Kamlesh Singh S/o Beharilal,
aged about 22 years R.O.
Mitrora P.S. Jaisingh Nagar,
District Shahdol (MP)
Vs.
RESPONDENT : State of Madhya Pradesh
For the appellant : Shri Rushtam Khan with Ms.
Asghari Khan, Advocates.
For the respondent/State : Shri Amit Sharma, Govt.
Advocate.
PRESENT : Hon'ble Shri Justice H.P. Singh
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Nandita Dubey
Whether approved for reporting :
Law laid down
Significant paragraph numbers :
Arguments heard on : 07.04.2018
Judgment delivered on : 13.04.2018
JUDGMENT
As per Nandita Dubey, J.:
This appeal arises out of judgment dated 23.5.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Beohari, District Shahdol in S.T. No.309/2007, whereby the appellant Kamlesh Singh has been found guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life 2 Cr.A.No.1677/2008 imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- and Rigorous imprisonment of 3 months, respectively.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.9.2007 at around 11.30 AM the appellant/accused murdered the deceased Babbi Bai by assaulting her with lathi and Gupti and caused grievous injuries to her husband Jageshwar Singh (PW5).
3. As per prosecution, the accused is the grand son of the deceased and injured Jageshwar. His brother Kamalnarayan and sister Pooja died a month ago and he suspected that they died as a result of some 'Jadutona' (witchcraft) done by his deceased grandmother. On 16.9.2007 at about 11.30 AM, the accused entered the house of the deceased and assaulted her with gupti and lathi, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries on her head and died on the spot. Hearing her cries when Jageshwar rushed to intervene and save her, he was also assaulted by the appellant on his head with the lathi. He also gave a blow with gupti on his hand. Hearing the shouts of Jageshwar (PW1), Moolchand (PW2) and Nathu (PW3) came to the spot and on seeing them the 3 Cr.A.No.1677/2008 accused ran away.
4. A report Ex.P/1 to this effect was lodged by Ramchandra (PW1) at police station Jaisingh Nagar, on the basis of which Marg (Ex.P/1) was recorded and an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered.
5. On the basis of FIR, criminal law was set into motion. Spot map was prepared and pieces of broken glass bangles along with blood stained soil was seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem.
6. The accused was arrested and on his disclosure Ex.P/6, one iron gupti with a wooden handle and a bamboo stick were recovered vide Ex.P/7.
7. Dr. S.D. Kanwar (PW8) who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, found following injuries :
(i) incised wound 2½ cm x ½ cm beside the right eye,
(ii) incised would 2 cm x ½ cm below the right ear,
(iii) reflected skin of occipital area besible skull bone, multiple incised wound 5 in number 6 x 4 inch about each, 4 Cr.A.No.1677/2008
(vi) incised wound 3½ x 1 cm left hand thumb,
(v) incised wound present on right hand between the middle and ring finger and
(vi) 3 in number 2 cm x 1 cm about each on his medical report.
8. The injured Jageshwar (PW5) and Ramchandra (PW1) were sent for medical examination. As per the MLC report Ex.P/16 of Jagehswar, he sustained following injuries :-
(I) lacerated wound 8 cm x 2 cm middle
part of head,
(ii) swelling 10 cm x 5 cm on left palm,
(iii) incised wound of 5 ½ cm x ½ cm on right forearm.
MLC report (Ex.P/17) of Ramchandra Singh, reflects that he complained of pain in the neck region, however,, no exterior injury was seen.
9. After completion of the investigation, the accused was put to trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 8 witnesses. The accused when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. His defence was that Jageshwar and Ramchandra in order to grab his father's property, had killed Babbibai, and falsely implicated him. However, he did not examine any witness in his support.
5 Cr.A.No.1677/2008
10. The trial Court relying on the evidence of (PW1) Ramchandra, (PW-2) Moolchandra Singh, (PW-4) Saroj Singh and (PW-5) Jageshwar found the accused guilty of committing the offence and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is conflict in medical and ocular evidence. It is urged that the witnesses have stated that the accused assaulted the deceased with lathi whereas the injuries found on the body of the deceased were of sharped edged weapons. It is further urged that there was no FSL report to prove that the weapon/gupti was used in the incident.
12. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the judgment of the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it is observed that the appellant and witnesses Ramchandra (PW1), Moolchandra Singh (PW-2), 6 Cr.A.No.1677/2008 Saroj Singh (PW4) and Jageshwar (PW-5) and the deceased belong to the same family. Accused and Ramchandra (PW1) is the grand sons, (PW2) Moolchandra Singh is the son and (PW4) Saroj Singh is the daughter-in-law of injured Jageshwar (PW5) and the deceased Babbi Bai.
14. According to (PW5) Jageshwar, who also received injuries in the incident as is clear from Ex.P/17, deceased was cooking food in the house and he was taking bath at the well in their house when the accused came and started assaulting Babbibai with Gupti and lathi, hearing her shouts, this witness ran inside and tried to intervene and save Babbibai, on which the accused assaulted him on the head with lathi and inflicted a blow with gupti on his hand. Hearing the shouts of Jageshwar, Moolchand (PW2) and Nathu (PW3) came to the spot and seeing them the accused ran away. Statement of this witness is corroborated by (PW2) Moolchand and (PW3) Nathu who have clearly stated that hearing shouts they went to the house of deceased where they saw the accused hitting the deceased with gupti and stick, she had injuries on the head. Jageshwar also received 7 Cr.A.No.1677/2008 injuries on head and hand in the incident. These witnesses remain consistent and unimpeachable despite their extensive cross-examination.
15. (PW1) Ramchandra Singh had deposed that his sister Sumitra informed him that the accused is beating his grand mother Babbi Bai. He went to the house of Babbi Bai and saw that accused was assaulting her with gupti and lathi. He tried to intervene but the accused dealt a blow with lathi on the head of (PW5) Jageshwar and a blow of gupti on his hand, the accused also grabbed him by neck and pushed him aside and ran away. This witness thereafter, went to report the incident at the police station Jaisingh Nagar. His statement is also proved by FIR (Ex.P/2) as well as Marg intimation (Ex.P/1).
16. The evidence of (PW1) Ramchandra, (PW-2) Moolchandra Singh, (PW3) Nathu, (PW-4) Saroj Singh and (PW-5) Jageshwar clearly established that the deceased was assaulted by gupti and lathi on the head which is also corroborated by postmortem report and evidence of Dr. S.D. Kunwar (PW8) who found six incised wounds on the head, face and hands of the 8 Cr.A.No.1677/2008 deceased. He has opined that death of Babbi Bai occurred due to the injuries on her head. Hence there is no discrepancies in the ocular and medical evidence.
17. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that all witnesses are relatives and interested witnesses and have falsely implicated the appellant to grab the property, sans merits. Firstly, as no such suggestion was given to the witnesses nor any documentary evidence was produced to show that (PW5) Jageshwar was trying to grab the property of the father of appellant. Secondly, (PW5) Jageshwar and (PW1) Ramchandra are injured witnesses and their presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted. It is also proved from the spot map (Ex.P/3) that the houses of all these witnesses are adjacent/nearby making them all natural witnesses who immediately reached the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts. In view of the clear eye witness account even if the FSL report is not on record , that will not be fatal for the prosecution case.
18. Having perused the record as well as the 9 Cr.A.No.1677/2008 impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and that the trial Court has rightly relief upon the consistent and sterling evidence of the eye-witnesses, the doctor as well as the documents on record, to rightly record a finding of guilt against the appellant.
19. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant being merit-less is accordingly dismissed. The judgment passed by the trial Court is affirmed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and 323 of the IPC is accordingly upheld and affirmed. The appellant who is in jail shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.
(H.P. Singh) (Nandita Dubey)
JUDGE JUDGE
rss
Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2018.04.13 14:45:31 +05'30'