Munnalal Kaurav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1051343
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-03-2013
AppellantMunnalal Kaurav
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
cr.r.no.412/2013 3.4.2013 shri pradeep naveriya, counsel for the applicant. shri s.k.kashyap, public prosecutor for the respondent no.1/state. heard on admission. the applicant has challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned jmfc, gadarwara, district narsinghpur by which the complaint filed by the applicant under section 203 of cr.p.c was dismissed. the prosecution's case in short is that the deceased hakam singh was found hanging in the house of the respondent no.2 virendra, situated in his field at village barheta, police station gadarwara, district narsinghpur. an intimation was given to the police. it was found that the deceased sustained so many injuries and his feet was touching to the ground. after investigation the police filed a challan under section 306 of i.p.c against the respondents rajneesh and jagmohan. thereafter, the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents no.2 to 6 for offence punishable under sections 302 and 306 of i.p.c.the learned jmfc after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant dismissed the complaint under section 203 of cr.p.c for offence punishable under section 302 of i.p.c but, he took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of i.p.c against the remaining respondents. after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case especially the evidence led by the various witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of cr.p.c, it appears that there is no eye witness of the case to say that the deceased was hanged before him. according to the statements of the various witnesses, it appears that the respondents no.2 to 6 took the deceased hakam singh with them in the evening and they assaulted him. thereafter, he was found missing. the entire case depends upon circumstantial evidence in the case. looking to the evidence of the witnesses, one circumstance is present that the respondents no.2 to 6 were seen with the deceased soon before the incident. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that feet of the deceased were touching to the ground and therefore, he did not commit suicide. on the contrary, he was hanged. looking to the injuries shown in the post mortem report, it appears that it was a case of hanging. the deceased suffered a contusion on his left eyebrow and an abrasion on his left wrist. looking to the post mortem report, it appears that visible injuries found to the deceased were caused by the respondents during his abduction. such injuries are not related as a mark of violence in the matter. by the post mortem report, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was homicidal. in this connection, the statement given by maujilal (pw4) is important. he has accepted that on 2.5.2012 at about 9.00–9.30 a.m, respondent virendra came to the house of maujilal and told that his brother hakam singh is found hanging in his house situated near the well. if the respondent no.2 to 5 had hanged the deceased then their natural conduct would be that they would have thrown the dead body of the deceased at any unknown place. they could not keep the body of the deceased in their own house situated near the well. therefore, this circumstance clearly rebuts the other circumstances created against the respondents. under such circumstances, chain of circumstantial evidence is not only broken but, looking to the conduct of the respondent no.2, it appears that he had no knowledge about the death of the deceased before seeing the dead body. under such circumstances, on the basis of the suspicion no case can be registered. the learned jmfc has rightly dismissed the complaint for offence punishable under section 302 of i.p.c.there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the learned jmfc while taking the cognizance in the appeal. consequently, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. hence it is hereby dismissed in motion stage. (n.k.gupta) judge bina
Judgment:

Cr.R.No.412/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Pradeep Naveriya, counsel for the applicant.

Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/State.

Heard on admission.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur by which the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 203 of Cr.P.C was dismissed.

The prosecution's case in short is that the deceased Hakam Singh was found hanging in the house of the respondent no.2 Virendra, situated in his field at Village Barheta, Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.

An intimation was given to the Police.

It was found that the deceased sustained so many injuries and his feet was touching to the ground.

After investigation the Police filed a challan under section 306 of I.P.C against the respondents Rajneesh and Jagmohan.

Thereafter, the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondents no.2 to 6 for offence punishable under sections 302 and 306 of I.P.C.The learned JMFC after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant dismissed the complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C but, he took the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C against the remaining respondents.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case especially the evidence led by the various witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C, it appears that there is no eye witness of the case to say that the deceased was hanged before him.

According to the statements of the various witnesses, it appears that the respondents no.2 to 6 took the deceased Hakam Singh with them in the evening and they assaulted him.

Thereafter, he was found missing.

The entire case depends upon circumstantial evidence in the case.

Looking to the evidence of the witnesses, one circumstance is present that the respondents no.2 to 6 were seen with the deceased soon before the incident.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that feet of the deceased were touching to the ground and therefore, he did not commit suicide.

On the contrary, he was hanged.

Looking to the injuries shown in the post mortem report, it appears that it was a case of hanging.

The deceased suffered a contusion on his left eyebrow and an abrasion on his left wrist.

Looking to the post mortem report, it appears that visible injuries found to the deceased were caused by the respondents during his abduction.

Such injuries are not related as a mark of violence in the matter.

By the post mortem report, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was homicidal.

In this connection, the statement given by Maujilal (PW4) is important.

He has accepted that on 2.5.2012 at about 9.00–9.30 a.m, respondent Virendra came to the house of Maujilal and told that his brother Hakam Singh is found hanging in his house situated near the well.

If the respondent no.2 to 5 had hanged the deceased then their natural conduct would be that they would have thrown the dead body of the deceased at any unknown place.

They could not keep the body of the deceased in their own house situated near the well.

Therefore, this circumstance clearly rebuts the other circumstances created against the respondents.

Under such circumstances, chain of circumstantial evidence is not only broken but, looking to the conduct of the respondent no.2, it appears that he had no knowledge about the death of the deceased before seeing the dead body.

Under such circumstances, on the basis of the suspicion no case can be registered.

The learned JMFC has rightly dismissed the complaint for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the learned JMFC while taking the cognizance in the appeal.

Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted.

Hence it is hereby dismissed in motion stage.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge bina