Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khumsingh Balu Barela vs The State Of M.P. on 21 September, 2017
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT
INDORE
D.B: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA & HON'BLE SHRI
JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.487/2006
KHEMSINGH S/O BALU BARELA
Vs.
STATE OF M.P
Shri K.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 21/09/2017) Per Virender Singh, J:
1. Appellant has challenged his conviction under section 302 IPC for murdering his real brother Rajaan and sentence of life imprisonment dated 25.03.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.221/05 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone (West Nimar). The appellant is also fined Rs.500/- and in default of payment of which further to undergo imprisonment for six months.
2. It is not disputed that the deceased Rajaan was real brother of the accused and witness Navdibai (PW/1) is the wife and Karan (PW/6) is son of the deceased. Deceased and accused were five brothers. They were having 25 acres ancestral agricultural land and each brother got 5 acres land -2- in share. After death of elder brother Rodia, his share was conferred on the accused Khemsingh and he was cultivating the same. In this offence he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/8.
3. According to the prosecution, the deceased was demanding half of the land of elder brother Rodia from the accused but he was not ready to give away. Due to this demand the accused was holding a grudge with the deceased Rajaan. On 19.08.2005 at about 3'O clock in the noon the deceased was coming back home from Bumnala after purchasing goods. When he reached Heerapur road near village Temarni, the accused suddenly targeted his head with stone and caused fatal injury to which he succumbed. Navdibai, the wife of deceased, who was on the way to receive her husband, on reaching Heerapur heard his screams and rushed towards him. She tried to stop the accused but he assaulted her also. Their sons Kiran and Sarvan also reached on the spot. Before all of them, the accused crushed the face and forehead of the deceased with stone. Navdibai rushed towards village and narrated the incident to Sarpanch Varsingh (PW/7).
4. On the date of the incident J.S. Bhadoriya, SHO, Police Station Gogaon was on patrolling in the rural area. When he reached village Gungariyakhedi, he received information that some untoward incident has happened at village Temarni. He went to the spot, where Navdibai informed him that her -3- brother-in-law Khemsingh has killed her husband Rajaan Singh. He scribed Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) and sent it to the Police Station Gogaon for registration of the offence, where the offence was registered at crime No.118/05 under section 302 IPC (Ex.P/14). Mr. Bhadoriya called the witnesses by issuing them notices, prepared Panchnama Lash and spot map, seized plain and blood stained soil, sent the dead body for postmortem, recovered and seized the stone from the possession of the accused, he also seized his nails, blood stained clothes, sent all articles to F.S.L for chemical examination. The FSL report confirmed the existence of blood on Shirt, Lower (Paijama) and nails of hands and feet and human blood on Lower (Paijama). After receiving postmortem report and completing the investigation, the Police filed charge sheet before the Court. The accused was charged with offence punishable under section 302 IPC and after the trial; he was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the learned trial Court is erroneous and contrary to law and facts available on record. Learned trial Court failed to consider material contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and have wrongly placed reliance on their statements. It is also argued that the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that the deceased was interested -4- in grabbing land of deceased elder brother Rodia which was bequeathed to the accused. The statement of Navdibai is full of contradictions and no one has supported her version. The Police has not made the neighbours witness in this case though Nabdibai herself has admitted their presence on the spot. The prosecution has not examined eye witness Sarwan, Independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. On these grounds, learned defence counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the State has opposed the prayer. Inviting our attention towards statement of Navdibai and other witnesses, he supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. We have considered rival contentions and have gone through the record.
8. The accused has not contested that on the date, time and place of the incident Rajaan died.
9. Dr. R.C. Parsai (PW/2) has deposed that on 20.08.2005 he performed autopsy and found two lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased Rajaan with a contusion on left parietal bone and lacerated wound on left knee. These injuries were ante-mortem and were on the vital parts of the body and were caused within 24 hours of the post-mortem by hard and blunt object and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life and due to these injuries, he succumbed to death. The accused has not challenged these -5- findings and therefore it is proved that on 19.08.2005 the deceased died due to fatal injuries on the head and his death was homicidal.
10. Navdibai (PW/1) has stated that at the time of the incident she was at her field with her sons. Her husband was coming from Bumnala. When he was on the way the accused Khemsingh assaulted him by stone on his face. He sustained injury on face and chest. The stone was weighing about 5 kg. She rushed towards her husband. The accused fled away. She immediately went to Sarpanch Varsingh (PW/7) and narrated him the incident that her brother-in-law (Devar) has killed her husband Rajaan. By that time, the Police also reached in the village. She narrated the incident to the Police also. The Police scribed Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1. Her son Kiran (PW/6), Sarpanch Varsingh (PW/7) and Inspector J.S.Bhadoria have supported her statement.
11. Kiran (PW/6) has stated that on hearing screams of his mother, he rushed towards the place of incident and had seen the accused running away. Varsingh (PW/7) has stated that just after the incident Navdibai came and narrated him the incident. J.S.Bhadoria (PW/9) has stated that while patrolling in rural area, he received information about some untoward incident. He reached on the spot; where Navdibai narrated the incident to him. He scribed Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1. Dr. R.C. Parsai has stated that he found two ante- mortem lacerated wounds on the head of the deceased -6- Rajaan caused by hard and blunt object and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death of the deceased was homicidal. All these statements could not be rebutted in the cross examination and are well supported by relevant documents. These statements and documents further corroborate the statement of Nabdibai. Nothing could be exposed which makes these statements untrustworthy or unbelievable. The learned trial Court has discussed all these evidence and has rightly relied upon it.
12. Defence has raised points that the main witnesses Nabdibai and Kiran are wife and sons of the deceased and are interested witness, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses; therefore, case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon.
13. Although the law in this regard is well settled but even then we would like to consider it first.
14. It is held in para 5 of the Boya Ganganna and another Vs.State of A.P (AIR 1976 SC 1541) as under:
5. ...... No doubt, some minor contradictions here and there have been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 2 and 3, but such minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of trained and educated persons, memory sometimes plays false and this would be much more so in case of ignorant -7- and rustic women. It must also be remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very much depend upon his power of observation and it is possible that some aspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while they may not be witnessed by another though both are present at the scene of offence. It would not, therefore, be right to reject the testimony of witnesses like PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 merely on the basis of minor contradictions. We think that the High Court was right in accepting the testimony given by them.
15. Para 5 & 6 of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in AIR 1983 SC 753 Bharwada BhoginBhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat are relevant here, which reads thus:
5. ..... The finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court has been challenged mainly on the basis of minor discrepancies in the evidence.
We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighed by learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious :-
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed an the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events, The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.-8-
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross- examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimesso operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him - perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
6. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
-9-16. Keeping in view these principles now we examine the statements of the witnesses. Navdibai (PW/1) has stated in her Court statement that the accused inflicted stone injury on the chest of her husband but no such injury was found in the post mortem. She has not stated this fact before the police neither at the time of scribing Dehati nalishi nor in her statement before the police. But this does not affect quality of her statement, as claimed by the defence. It is to be borne in mind that the witness is a rustic woman and not tutored witnesses and incident took place within a minute or two, injuries were inflicted by throwing stone, the accused inflicted blow by stone on the face and head of the deceased. Considering the nature and duration of the incident and other facts and circumstances such type of differences are natural. They do not affect the main facts stated by the witness that the accused inflicted injury on face and head of the deceased by stone. Therefore her statement remains reliable.
17. There are contradictions in the statements of witnesses as to why the deceased Rajaan has gone to Bumnala. In the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/1 it is mentioned that he went to bring some goods. Navdibai stated that he went to bring green chilies. Kiran (PW/6) stated that he went to bring kerosene but it does not make any difference and the fact remains the same that before the incident the deceased had gone to -10- Bumnala and at the time of incident he was coming back from there.
18. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Navdibai has stated in Dehati Nalishi that her sons Kiran and Sarvan also rushed to the spot but in the Court she has stated that Sarvan was at home. Kiran (PW/6) has stated that first of all Sarvan screamed then their mother rushed towards the spot but Navdibai did not say like this. She stated that she has seen the accused inflicting injury on the deceased. Sarvan has not been examined by the prosecution. For these reasons, presence of the witnesses on the spot is doubtful. But Sarvan was minor at that time. Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove any fact. It is not necessary to examine all the witnesses of the same fact. It is the prerogative of the prosecution as to whom to be examined or whom not to be. The guilt of an accused may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. In this regard we can refer Masalti Vs. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202 and Vehula Bhushan Vs. State of Taminadu AIR 1989 SC
236. -11-
19. Since the evidence of eye-witnesses coupled with the evidence of the Doctor proves the case of the prosecution against the appellant and as nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to discard their evidence, the trial court is justified in relying upon the evidence of these witnesses for coming to the conclusion. Since the evidence of these witnesses has remained unimpeached, and as there are no major contradiction or omissions in the evidence of these witnesses, the non- examination of Sarwan by the prosecution do not tilt the balance in favour of the defence. It has not been shown what prejudice has been caused to the appellant by such non-examination. Thus, non production of Sarwan has no adverse impact on the case of the prosecution.
20. Presence of Nabdibai and Kiran on the place of occurrence is beyond doubt and there is no deference in the Dehati Nalishi or the statement of Navdibai or Kiran in this regard. Incident took place within minutes. Many people may see and react for it simultaneously. They may think or claim that they have seen or reacted first. But by efflux of time, discrepancies with regard to minute details of the incident are bound to come. Therefore, on this ground their truthfulness cannot be doubted. Such type of contradictions has no effect to disprove the prosecution story.
21. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has not examined any -12- independent witness while their presence is admitted by Navdibai herself in para-6 of the cross examination. But if the persons do not come forward for various reasons then the prosecution cannot be blamed for the same. Non- examination of independent witness is not significant in case of direct evidence.
22. It is held in Rajagopal Vs.Muthupandi alias Thavakkalai and Ors AIR 2017 SC 1230 that if "nobody has been examined from residences and shops nearby; and that no taxi driver has been examined since PWs 1 and 2 claim to have gone to hospital in a taxi; and that the motorcycles on which the accused drove are not seized, all pales into insignificance once direct evidence is available."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors. AIR 2016 SC 1160 as under:
21(vi). As far as the non-examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of -13- the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy.
24. The defence has raised finger on the reliability of the statements of the main witnesses Navdibai and Kiran stating that both are wife and son of the deceased and thus interested in the prosecution. But there is no reason why she should not be speaking the truth, hiding the name of the real assailants of her husband in front of her eyes. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. It is held in Dayal Singh and Ors v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2012 SC 3046 that relationship with deceased is no ground to disbelieve an eye witness unless his testimony carries element of unfairness and undue intention of false implication. It only needs great care and caution before relying upon such witnesses. The real test for examining truthfulness of any witness is the cross examination of the witness by the accused and not the corroboration or support from any other witness or document. On this premises, if we test the statements of Navdibai and Kiran, we find nothing to disbelieve them. Further, these statements are corroborated and supported by the statement of SHO and Dr. Parsai and the documents prepared during investigation. Therefore, this ground of the defence also fails.
-14-25. No other discrepancy or contradiction could be pointed out by the defence which adversely affects the prosecution case. Learned trial Court has considered all the contradictions and omissions and all other defences raised by the accused in detail and rightly concluded that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 eye-witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable. We do not think it necessary to reiterate all those discussions here. After proper appreciation of evidence the trial Court held that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusions are supported by the evidence. Testimony of eye-witnesses that accused assaulted injured with stone is consistent, cogent, reliable and corroborated by medical evidence. The defence could not dent the substance of the statements of witnesses. Some minor or insignificant discrepancies or contradictions have no importance, they do not destroy core of the prosecution case and do not make the testimony of the witnesses unreliable or untrustworthy. We are also satisfied that the death of deceased Rajaan was homicidal and it was caused by the accused by inflicting blow by stone, therefore, trial Court did not commit any error in holding the accused guilty. We do not see any reason to differ from the conclusions of the trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on record. Neither do we see any perversity in the reasons and the conclusion of the Courts below. No ground is made out to interfere with the -15- findings of the trial Court, therefore, we affirm the same and hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.
26. After due consideration, we also confirm the punishment awarded to the accused by the trial Court. Thus, the appeal sans merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
27. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of property is hereby confirmed.
28. With the aforesaid, this appeal stands dismissed and disposed of.
(ROHIT ARYA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
hk/