Ram Singh Vs. the State of M.P. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1039663
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJun-28-2012
AppellantRam Singh
RespondentThe State of M.P.
Excerpt:
1 cr.a.no.522/1994 high court of madhya pradesh : jabalpur division bench:hon'ble shri justice rakesh saksena hon'ble shri justice t.k.kaushal criminal appeal no.522/1994 appellant: ram singh s/o mohan singh lodhi, aged about 24 years, r/o manguwa p.s. kumhari, tahsil hatta, district damoh (m.p.) vs. respondent: the state of madhya pradesh for appellant : shri s.k. nema, advocate for respondent : shri umesh pandey, government advocate judgment .07.2012 this appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 29.03.1994 passed  by   iii   additional   sessions   judge,   damoh   delivered   in   s.t.   no.122/1993  convicting   the   appellant   under   section   302   of   ipc   for   committing   murder   of  churaman (since deceased) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. facts of the case, in short, are that on 09.06.1993 in the evening while  deceased was taking meals, ramkishan (pw­9) along with kallu (pw­5) reached  his  house  and   asked  him  to   lift the   wood   log  from forest  for  rs.   20/­  labour  charges. deceased left the meals and accompanied the appellant. due to physical  incapacity, kallu (pw­5) was left behind for a while. across the railway line, the  appellant took out a knife from his pocket of the pant and stabbed the deceased  and ran away from the place.3. deceased, some how reached in village in the house of sita (pw­1) and  asked   to   call   his   parents   saying   that   appellant   had   stabbed   him   in   abdomen.  ameen (pw­2), vidya bai, wife of deceased (pw­3), khajjo, father of deceased  (pw­5), natthu (pw­6), ramkishan (pw­9), madho (pw­10) and motilal, brother  of deceased (pw­17) reached there and saw the deceased, who had covered the  2 cr.a.no.522/1994 bleeding wound with a towel. deceased narrated the incident and the name of  the   appellant   to   them.   deceased   was   taken   to   banwar   chouki   and   then   fir  ex.p­20 was lodged. police registered a case at cr. no.0/93 under section 307 of  ipc against the appellant and kallu (pw­5). thereafter, deceased was taken to  the hospital, dr. n.k. malhotra (pw­7) examined his injury and prepared mlc  report ex.p­8 and referred him for further treatment. dr. n.k. malhotra (pw­7)  found   one   stab   injury   on   the   abdomen.   according   to   evidence   of   dr.   n.k.  malhotra (pw­7) and mlc report ex.p­8 there had been one stabbed injury on  the abdomen of the deceased from which omentum was coming out.4. on 10.06.1993 dr. b.s. yadu (pw­22) performed surgery on the deceased.  next day i.e. 11.06.1993 deceased died in the hospital. dr. j.p. pansari (pw­8)  performed post mortem of the deceased and  prepared post mortem report ex.  p­10.   according   to   evidence   of   dr.   pansari   (pw­8)   and   post   mortem   report  ex.p­10,   death   was   caused   due   to   hemorrhage   and   shock   and   injury   of   the  abdomen was found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.5. vide   ex.p­11,   on   13.06.1993,   appellant   was   arrested   and   knife   was  recovered at his instance. knife, etc. were sent to forensic   science laboratory,  sagar for chemical examination.  6. on  03.08.1993   statements    under   section   164   of   the   code   of   criminal  procedure, 1973 of kallu (pw­5) was recorded by jmfc  damoh (pw­23). citing  him as prosecution witness, police submitted a charge sheet under section 302 of  ipc   against   appellant   in   the   court   concerned   judicial   magistrate.   case   was  committed to the trial court. trial court framed charge under section 302 of ipc.  appellant abjured guilt.  7. to   substantiate   the   case   of   prosecution,   statements   of   sita   bai   (pw­1),  ameen (pw­2), vidya bai, wife of deceased (pw­3), khajjo, father of deceased  (pw­4),   kallu   @   dansingh   (pw­5),   natthu   singh   (pw­6),   dr.   n.k.   malhotra  (pw­7), dr. j.p. pansari (pw­8), ramkishan (pw­9), madho (pw­10), shankar  lal (pw­11), heera lal, asi (pw­12), kallu singh, constable (pw­13), jagdish  singh,   constable   (pw­14),   jalam  (pw­15),   nazir   khan,   asi   (pw­16),   motilal,  brother   of   deceased   (pw­17),   take   singh   (pw­18),   jugraj   (pw­19),   satya  3 cr.a.no.522/1994 prasash,   patwari   (pw­20),   ramlal   (pw­21),   dr.   b.s.   yadu   (pw­22),   jogendra  kumar verma, jmfc (pw­23), ramkrishan pathak, asi (pw­24) were recorded.  evidence   of   the   appellant  was  that  of   false   implication.   according   to  defence,  deceased was suspecting undue intimacy of the appellant with his (deceased's)  wife vidya bai (pw­3) and deceased himself attempted to kill appellant and by  mistake himself sustained injury with his own knife.8. after appreciating aforesaid evidence trial court held the appellant guilty  under   section   302   of   ipc   and   sentenced   him  as   above.   this   appeal   has   been  preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. fir ex.p20,  in fact, is a concocted and fake document. cause of death of the deceased was not  the injury but was the medical negligence. the deceased had sustained only one  injury and he died after two days of the incident and at the most he could be held  liable for lesser offence and punishment. on the other hand, learned government  advocate has supported the finding of conviction and sentence.  9. in view of the medical evidence available on record including statements of  dr. n.k. malhotra (pw­7), dr. j.p. pansar (pw­8), dr. b.s. yadu (pw­22) and  further in view of the evidence of ex.p­8 mlc report and ex.p­10 post mortem  report it remains no longer disputed that death of the deceased was homicidal, it  has  been   clearly   stated   by   dr.   n.k.   malhotra   (pw­7),   who  prepared   the   mlc  report ex.p­8 and by dr. j.p. pansar (pw­8) who performed post mortem report  ex. p­10 that stab injury in abdomen was sufficient to cause death in ordinary  course of nature.10. ramkrishan pathak, asi (pw­24) stated that he recorded the fir ex.p­20  himself   as   per   the   version   of   the   deceased.   he   immediately   forwarded   the  deceased to damoh hospital for treatment, while he reached hospital for taking  steps to record dying declaration, the patient had been sent in operation theater  for surgery, and thereafter deceased died. it is vehemently argued by shri nema,  learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   that   ex.p­20   fir,   is   suffering   from   many  omissions and discrepancies. but on careful perusal of whole statement of pw­24  it becomes clear that fir ex.p­20 has been recorded by him in the same wordings  narrated   by   the   deceased.   it   has   been   recorded   at   the   earliest   opportunity.  nothing is suggestive for him to make variations in the contents of the report. in  4 cr.a.no.522/1994 our   considered   opinion   pw­24   is   a   reliable   witness   in   respect   of   ex.p­20   fir  which has been rightly treated as dying declaration in the event of death of the  deceased and is inspiring the confidence.  11. learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that deceased has  in fact lodged a false report implicating him because he had a doubt that his wife  vidya bai (pw­3) is having undue intimacy with him (the appellant). from the  evidence of sita bai (pw­1), ameen (pw­2), vidya bai, wife of deceased (pw­3),  khajjo,   father   of   deceased   (pw­4),   natthu   singh   (pw­6),   ramkishan   (pw­9),  madho   (pw­10),   and   motilal,   brother   of   deceased   (pw­17)   it   is   clearly  established that deceased narrated the incident to them also prior to the time he  was taken to the police station for lodging fir.   the deceased had named the  appellant as one who caused injury to him by knife. we have no reason to doubt  aforesaid   evidence   of   oral   dying   declaration   given   by   the   deceased   to   the  aforesaid   witnesses.   this   evidence   further   corroborates   the   dying   declaration  ex.p­20 in the matter.  12. trial   court   after   considering   the   evidences   of   prosecution   in   correct  perspective   rightly   reached   to   the   conclusion   of   guilt   of   the   appellant.  appreciation of evidence is proper. after considering the medical evidence and  the evidence of dying declaration, though deceased sustained only one injury and  died   after   two   days   of   the   incident,   in   our   opinion   no   case   of   reduction   of  conviction and sentence is made out. accordingly, the finding of conviction of  appellant under section 307 of ipc, recorded by the trial court is affirmed. appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.   (rakesh saksena)          (t.k. kaushal)   judge       judge  ak
Judgment:

1 Cr.A.No.522/1994 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.522/1994 Appellant: Ram Singh S/o Mohan Singh Lodhi, aged about 24 years, R/o Manguwa P.S. Kumhari, Tahsil Hatta, District Damoh (M.P.) Vs. Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh For Appellant : Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate JUDGMENT

.07.2012 This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 29.03.1994 passed  by   III   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Damoh   delivered   in   S.T.   No.122/1993  convicting   the   appellant   under   Section   302   of   IPC   for   committing   murder   of  Churaman (since deceased) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 09.06.1993 in the evening while  deceased was taking meals, Ramkishan (PW­9) along with Kallu (PW­5) reached  his  house  and   asked  him  to   lift the   wood   log  from forest  for  Rs.   20/­  labour  charges. Deceased left the meals and accompanied the appellant. Due to physical  incapacity, Kallu (PW­5) was left behind for a while. Across the railway line, the  appellant took out a knife from his pocket of the pant and stabbed the deceased  and ran away from the place.

3. Deceased, some how reached in village in the house of Sita (PW­1) and  asked   to   call   his   parents   saying   that   appellant   had   stabbed   him   in   abdomen.  Ameen (PW­2), Vidya Bai, wife of deceased (PW­3), Khajjo, father of deceased  (PW­5), Natthu (PW­6), Ramkishan (PW­9), Madho (PW­10) and Motilal, brother  of deceased (PW­17) reached there and saw the deceased, who had covered the  2 Cr.A.No.522/1994 bleeding wound with a towel. Deceased narrated the incident and the name of  the   appellant   to   them.   Deceased   was   taken   to   Banwar   Chouki   and   then   FIR  Ex.P­20 was lodged. Police registered a case at Cr. No.0/93 under Section 307 of  IPC against the appellant and Kallu (PW­5). Thereafter, deceased was taken to  the hospital, Dr. N.K. Malhotra (PW­7) examined his injury and prepared MLC  report Ex.P­8 and referred him for further treatment. Dr. N.K. Malhotra (PW­7)  found   one   stab   injury   on   the   abdomen.   According   to   evidence   of   Dr.   N.K.  Malhotra (PW­7) and MLC report Ex.P­8 there had been one stabbed injury on  the abdomen of the deceased from which Omentum was coming out.

4. On 10.06.1993 Dr. B.S. Yadu (PW­22) performed surgery on the deceased.  Next day i.e. 11.06.1993 deceased died in the hospital. Dr. J.P. Pansari (PW­8)  performed post mortem of the deceased and  prepared post mortem report Ex.  P­10.   According   to   evidence   of   Dr.   Pansari   (PW­8)   and   post   mortem   report  Ex.P­10,   death   was   caused   due   to   hemorrhage   and   shock   and   injury   of   the  abdomen was found sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.

5. Vide   Ex.P­11,   on   13.06.1993,   appellant   was   arrested   and   knife   was  recovered at his instance. Knife, etc. were sent to Forensic   Science Laboratory,  Sagar for chemical examination.  6. On  03.08.1993   statements    under   Section   164   of   the   Code   of   Criminal  Procedure, 1973 of Kallu (PW­5) was recorded by JMFC  Damoh (PW­23). Citing  him as prosecution witness, police submitted a charge sheet under Section 302 of  IPC   against   appellant   in   the   Court   concerned   Judicial   Magistrate.   Case   was  committed to the trial Court. Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC.  Appellant abjured guilt.  7. To   substantiate   the   case   of   prosecution,   statements   of   Sita   Bai   (PW­1),  Ameen (PW­2), Vidya Bai, wife of deceased (PW­3), Khajjo, father of deceased  (PW­4),   Kallu   @   Dansingh   (PW­5),   Natthu   Singh   (PW­6),   Dr.   N.K.   Malhotra  (PW­7), Dr. J.P. Pansari (PW­8), Ramkishan (PW­9), Madho (PW­10), Shankar  Lal (PW­11), Heera Lal, ASI (PW­12), Kallu Singh, Constable (PW­13), Jagdish  Singh,   Constable   (PW­14),   Jalam  (PW­15),   Nazir   Khan,   ASI   (PW­16),   Motilal,  brother   of   deceased   (PW­17),   Take   Singh   (PW­18),   Jugraj   (PW­19),   Satya  3 Cr.A.No.522/1994 Prasash,   Patwari   (PW­20),   Ramlal   (PW­21),   Dr.   B.S.   Yadu   (PW­22),   Jogendra  Kumar Verma, JMFC (PW­23), Ramkrishan Pathak, ASI (PW­24) were recorded.  Evidence   of   the   appellant  was  that  of   false   implication.   According   to  defence,  deceased was suspecting undue intimacy of the appellant with his (deceased's)  wife Vidya Bai (PW­3) and deceased himself attempted to kill appellant and by  mistake himself sustained injury with his own knife.

8. After appreciating aforesaid evidence trial Court held the appellant guilty  under   Section   302   of   IPC   and   sentenced   him  as   above.   This   appeal   has   been  preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. FIR Ex.P20,  in fact, is a concocted and fake document. Cause of death of the deceased was not  the injury but was the medical negligence. The deceased had sustained only one  injury and he died after two days of the incident and at the most he could be held  liable for lesser offence and punishment. On the other hand, learned Government  Advocate has supported the finding of conviction and sentence.  9. In view of the medical evidence available on record including statements of  Dr. N.K. Malhotra (PW­7), Dr. J.P. Pansar (PW­8), Dr. B.S. Yadu (PW­22) and  further in view of the evidence of Ex.P­8 MLC report and Ex.P­10 post mortem  report it remains no longer disputed that death of the deceased was homicidal, it  has  been   clearly   stated   by   Dr.   N.K.   Malhotra   (PW­7),   who  prepared   the   MLC  report Ex.P­8 and by Dr. J.P. Pansar (PW­8) who performed post mortem report  Ex. P­10 that stab injury in abdomen was sufficient to cause death in ordinary  course of nature.

10. Ramkrishan Pathak, ASI (PW­24) stated that he recorded the FIR Ex.P­20  himself   as   per   the   version   of   the   deceased.   He   immediately   forwarded   the  deceased to Damoh hospital for treatment, while he reached hospital for taking  steps to record dying declaration, the patient had been sent in operation theater  for surgery, and thereafter deceased died. It is vehemently argued by Shri Nema,  learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   that   Ex.P­20   FIR,   is   suffering   from   many  omissions and discrepancies. But on careful perusal of whole statement of PW­24  it becomes clear that FIR Ex.P­20 has been recorded by him in the same wordings  narrated   by   the   deceased.   It   has   been   recorded   at   the   earliest   opportunity.  Nothing is suggestive for him to make variations in the contents of the report. In  4 Cr.A.No.522/1994 our   considered   opinion   PW­24   is   a   reliable   witness   in   respect   of   Ex.P­20   FIR  which has been rightly treated as dying declaration in the event of death of the  deceased and is inspiring the confidence.  11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that deceased has  in fact lodged a false report implicating him because he had a doubt that his wife  Vidya Bai (PW­3) is having undue intimacy with him (the appellant). From the  evidence of Sita Bai (PW­1), Ameen (PW­2), Vidya Bai, wife of deceased (PW­3),  Khajjo,   father   of   deceased   (PW­4),   Natthu   Singh   (PW­6),   Ramkishan   (PW­9),  Madho   (PW­10),   and   Motilal,   brother   of   deceased   (PW­17)   it   is   clearly  established that deceased narrated the incident to them also prior to the time he  was taken to the police station for lodging FIR.   The deceased had named the  appellant as one who caused injury to him by knife. We have no reason to doubt  aforesaid   evidence   of   oral   dying   declaration   given   by   the   deceased   to   the  aforesaid   witnesses.   This   evidence   further   corroborates   the   dying   declaration  Ex.P­20 in the matter.  12. Trial   Court   after   considering   the   evidences   of   prosecution   in   correct  perspective   rightly   reached   to   the   conclusion   of   guilt   of   the   appellant.  Appreciation of evidence is proper. After considering the medical evidence and  the evidence of dying declaration, though deceased sustained only one injury and  died   after   two   days   of   the   incident,   in   our   opinion   no   case   of   reduction   of  conviction and sentence is made out. Accordingly, the finding of conviction of  appellant under Section 307 of IPC, recorded by the trial Court is affirmed. Appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.   (RAKESH SAKSENA)          (T.K. KAUSHAL)   Judge       Judge  ak