Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Azad @ Munnalal on 19 August, 2013
Author: R.S. Jha
Bench: R.S. Jha
M.Cr.C. No. 2940/2012
(State of MP Vs. Azad alias Munnalal and others)
19.08.2013
Per R.S. Jha, J.
Heard Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Government Advocate for State.
This application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Multai in S.T. No. 281/10, has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/accused persons for an alleged offence punishable under section 302/34 of the I.P.C.
It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State that the court below has wrongly acquitted the respondents by ignoring the statements of Nirmala Bai PW/1, Gulas Bai PW/5, Kusum Bai PW/20 and Bhaddu PW/21 who have clearly stated that the deceased before dying, had named the respondents as persons who had caused injuries resulting in his death.
Having heard the learned Government Advocate for the State, it is observed that the case of the prosecution before the the court below was that the deceased Kishori Lal and his wife had gone to graze cattle on 30.08.2010 and at about 5.30 PM they returned therefrom and thereafter the wife of the deceased Nirmala Bai PW/1 left him and went home. Thereafter when she returned to the field where she had left her husband, she did not find him there and when she tried to search for him she found him lying beside the road in front of Ghudu Sahu's house. It is alleged that when Nirmala Bai PW/1 tried to talk to the deceased he did not reply and therefore she shouted for help, upon which Madhu and Shubhash PW/12 rushed to the spot and took the deceased in a jeep to the house of the doctor, however, as the doctor was not at home they brought the deceased to his house and dropped there and thereafter went away. It is alleged that when Nirmala Bai PW/ 1 along with others tried to remove the wet clothes of the deceased they saw injuries on the body of the deceased and thereupon asked him what had happened upon which the deceased opened his eyes only to state that the respondents had assaulted him with sticks and thereafter died.
On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the criminal law was set in motion and the proceedings were taken up before the competent court against the respondents.
The court below has examined the facts of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion that there are no eye witnesses in the present case and the entire prosecution case depends upon the alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased Kishori Lal before his wife and some other persons. The court below after analyzing the entire evidence specifically that of doctor R.K. Nachankar PW/10 has disbelieved the statements of Nirmala Bai PW/1, Gulas Bai PW/5, Kusum Bai PW/20 and Bhaddu PW/21 due to glaring omissions and contradictions therein. The court below has found that the medical evidence of the doctor clearly establishes the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased Kishori Lal were so severe in nature that he could not have survived for more than 5 minutes after receiving the injuries and therefore the statement of Nirmala Bai PW/1 and others that he suddenly opened his eyes after having remained unconscious for a considerable period of time only to name accused, cannot be believed.
The court below has taken note of the fact that the place where his wife Nirmalal Bai PW/1 had last left him and the spot wherefrom the deceased was recovered is about 12 KMs away and there is nothing on record to indicate as to how the deceased reached that spot. The court below has also held that in the absence of any eye witnesses and in view of the statement of Subhash PW/12 who has stated that at the time when the deceased was found, he was unconscious, the statements of Nirmala Bai PW/1, Gulas Bai PW/5, Kusum Bai PW/20 and Bhaddu PW/21 to the effect that the deceased had suddenly regained consciousness only to give the name of the accused persons and thereafter died, cannot be believed.
Having perused the judgment of the court below, we are of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the court below are based on cogent and reasonable appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
(Ajit Singh) (R.S. Jha)
Judge Judge
msp