Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal vs State Of M.P. on 28 October, 2017
Author: P.K. Jaiswal
Bench: Virender Singh, P.K. Jaiswal
1
CRA No.71/2007
Criminal Appeal No.71/2007
28.10.2017
Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the appel-
lant.
Shri Amit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the re-
spondent / State of Madhya Pradesh.
Final arguments heard.
Judgment pronounced in open Court, typed separately
signed and dated.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
rcp
2
CRA No.71/2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
D.B.: Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal
Hon'ble Shri Virender Singh, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.71/2007
Babulal s/o Bherulal
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
*****
Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of
Madhya Pradesh.
*****
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced in Open Court on this 28th day of October, 2017) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) in Sessions Trial No.102/2006, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 449 of Indi- an Penal Code, 1860 and thereby passing sentence to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- and ten years rigor- ous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- respectively and in default, further rigorous imprisonment of one month, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment by filing this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973.
2. As per prosecution story, on 12.09.2005 at about 07.00 PM, when complainant Sukhibai (PW-8) and her hus- band Ramchandra along with their grandson Sanjay (PW-
10) were at their house situated at Village Chikalana, Tahsil Piploda, District Ratlam (MP), at that relevant point of time, 3 CRA No.71/2007 the present appellant (Babulal s/o Bherulal), [who is son-in- law of Sukhibai (PW-8) & Ramchandra (deceased) and hus- band of Gangabai (PW-9)], armed with knife forcefully en- tered into the house of complainant by breaking the door and started shouting, alleging that his wife Gangabai is ab- sconding and she is selling his Well and House, and there- fore, he will kill his father-in-law Ramchandra and inflicted stab injuries to him. Due to the aforesaid injuries, he fell down and thereafter, he took Lathi (Bomboo Stick) inflicted injuries to him on his head, jaw and neck. Due to the afore- said injuries, Ramchandra succumbed to death.
3. Badrilal (PW-1), who is residing in the village, im- mediately informed Head Constable Avval Singh (PW-11) on telephone. Daily Diary (Roznamcha-sanha No.390) was reg- istered vide Ex.P/2. Thereafter, Station House Officer, Po- lice Station Kalukheda K.P. David (PW-13) reached at the village and recorded report lodged by complainant Sukhibai (PW-8). Ex.P/10 Dehati Nalishi report registered by K.P. David (PW-13) on the basis of intimation given by Sukhibai (PW-8). Thereafter, the Police investigated the matter, recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared site map Ex.P/5, inquest was prepared, seized soil and blood stained soil and bamboo stick from the spot vide Ex.P/4, seized knife used in the incident upon pointing out of the appellant vide Ex.P/3. The deceased Ramchandra was sent to Civil Hospital, Jaora vide Ex.P/16. Postmortem was performed by Dr. M.K. Yadav (PW-12). Ex.P/14 is the Postmortem re- port.
4 CRA No.71/20074. After investigation, on 14.09.2006, charge under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been framed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded for prosecution.
5. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses; Badrilal (PW-1), Bane Singh (PW-2), Rugnath (PW-3), Ramkishan (PW-4), Laxman (PW-5), Constable Ramesh Chandra (PW-6), Babu Khan (PW-7), Sukhibai (PW-8), Gangabai (PW-9), Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10), Head Constable Avval Singh (PW-11), Dr. M.K. Yadav (PW-12) and K.P. David (PW-13). Sukhibai (PW-8) is widow of the deceased and mother-in-law of the appellant. A child witness Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10) is grandson of Sukhibai (PW-8) and son of the present appellant. Sukhibai (PW-8) and Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10) are the eye witnesses of the case. The matter was investigated by K.P. David (PW-13) and autopsy on the dead body of deceased Ramchandra was done by Dr. M.K. Yadav (PW-12).
6. On the basis of statement of the prosecution wit- nesses, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that it is the present appellant, who has committed murder of the deceased Ramchandra and convicted under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him, as stated herein above.
7. Shri Mukesh Sinjonia, learned counsel for the ap- pellant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. There is no legal evidence against the present appellant to commit murder of his father-in-law and both the eye wit-
5 CRA No.71/2007nesses are interested witnesses and except them, no other witness had witnessed the incident; and prayed for acquittal of the appellant.
8. To support the aforesaid submissions, he has drawn our attention to statement of Badrilal (PW-1) and other material prosecution witnesses, including Sukhibai (PW-8) and Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10) and also submitted that there was no enmity between the present appellant and the deceased; and he has been falsely implicated on the alle- gation that wife of the appellant left his house, and there- fore, he committed the alleged offence. Looking to the peri- od of jail sentence, which the present appellant has complet- ed (since 26.06.2006), learned counsel for the appellant prays to alter the period of jail sentence.
9. In reply, Shri Amit Singh, learned Public Prosecu- tor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh has drawn our attention to statement of both the eye witnesses Sukhibai (PW-8) and Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10) and submit- ted that the same has been medically corroborated also. Knife and lathi (bamboo stick), which have been used by the appellant in committing the alleged offence, have been re- covered from the possession of the present appellant and statement of both the eye witnesses duly corroborated by the statement of autopsy surgeon Dr. M.K. Yadav (PW-12). Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the appellant and no case for acquittal, nor this case would fall under Section 304 Part-I, II, III and / or IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as prayed for, by the 6 CRA No.71/2007 learned counsel for the appellant, is made out; and prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal.
10. We have perused the record of the case and heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the par- ties.
11. As per statement of Sukhibai (PW-8), who is mother-in-law of the present appellant, has very categorical- ly stated that on the date of incident,the deceased (her hus- band) was in the house along with her and their grandson Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10), at that relevant point of time, the present appellant came along with knife and after breaking the door of his house, started making allegations against his wife (Gangabai) and inflicted knife injuries to her husband and when he fell down, then he took lathi (bamboo stick) and inflicted injury on his head. Due to the said injuries, he died on the spot. Ex.P/10 is Dehati Nalishi lodged by her and Marg Intimation is Ex.P/11. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the present appellant. She stood on her own statement and supported the case of the prosecution.
12. Similar is the statement of Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-
10), who is son of the present appellant. He also in his state- ment has very categorically stated that it is his father who caused multiple stab injuries to the deceased and thereafter caused lathi (bamboo stick) injuries to the deceased on his head and neck.
13. Badrilal (PW-1) who in his statement has very cat- egorically stated that when he was going towards his house, 7 CRA No.71/2007 he saw that number of persons were collected at the house of deceased Ramchandra Dhakad. This witness did not sup- port the case of the prosecution and declared hostile.
14. Dr. M.K. Yadav (PW-12) in his statement very cat- egorically stated that on 13.09.2005, he had examined the dead body of deceased Ramchandra. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased as per postmortem report Ex.P/14: -
1. Contusion with swelling on left parietal region, size 6 cm x 2 ½ cm.
2. Haematoma right temporo parietal region, size 4 ½ cm x 4 cm.
3. Swelling with haematoma right mandibular re-
gion.
4. Incised wound right mandible, size 3 cm x ½ cm bone deep.
5. Incised wound below right ear 3 cm x ½ cm mus-
cle deep. Blood stick around wound.
6. Incised wound right arm medio lateral aspect, size 3 cm x ½ cm muscle deep.
7. Incised wound left ulnar aspect, size 5 cm x 2 ½ cm muscle deep.
8. Contusion with swelling left side of chest, size 6 cm x 3 ½ cm anterio lateral.
9. Linear abrasion right side of chest 5 cm in length.
10. Linear abrasion left side of chest below sternum 8 cm in length. Clotted blood present in the wound and blood stained and slide around the wound.
Injuries No.1, 2, 3 and 8, 9 and 10 caused by hard and blunt object and Injuries No.4, 5, 6 and 7 caused by hard and sharp object; ante mortem in nature. Duration within 24 hours.
15. K.P. David (PW-13) in his statement has stated that on the basis of the intimation received at Police Station, 8 CRA No.71/2007 Kalukheda, he reached at the place of occurrence and started investigation. Ex.P/5 is spot map. Ex. P/7 is crime detail form. Letters for FSL are Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9. Dehati Nal- ishi is Ex.P/10. Dehati Marg Intimation is Ex.P/11.
16. On due consideration of the statement of the ma- terial prosecution witnesses, so also the statement of both the eye witnesses Sukhibai (PW-8) and Sanjay @ Sanju (PW-10), the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. It cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. Both the witnesses are related to the appellant. PW-10 is son of the present appellant and this witness in his statement has sup- ported the case of the prosecution, which has been duly cor- roborated by the medical evidence. Considering their state- ment, it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses or in any way falsely implicating the present appellant.
17. Considering the aforesaid and well reasoned find- ing recorded by the learned trial Court, we are of the view that no case to interfere with impugned judgment of convic- tion and sentence dated 20.11.2005 passed against the ap- pellant by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.102/2006, as prayed for, is made out.
18. Criminal Appeal No.71/2007 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh)
Judge Judge
Pithawe RC