Aman Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.2.2005 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court), Shahdol in S.T. No.299/2004, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and

sentenced for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- along with default sentence.

Deceased Jagotiya Bai and the appellant resided at village Tikdi Tola District Shahdol (now is District Anuppur).

As per the unfolded prosecution story, on 17.9.2004 at about 6:00 p.m., the appellant chased Jagotiya Bai, hence she went to the house of

village Sarpanch Balmukund to make a complaint against the appellant regarding the assault committed by the appellant on her. Sarpanch

Balmukund asked her to sit for sometime. After completing domestic work, he saw that the appellant reached there and inflicted blows of Besakhi

(crutches) to Jagotiya Bai. She sustained injuries. Balmukund went to the house of Jagotiya Bai to inform about the incident and he was bringing

her to the police station but on the way Jagotiya Bai died. Merg intimation was lodged by Balmukund at Police Station, Kotama. Thereafter, FIR

Ex.P/2 was registered by the police against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the appellant.

After committal of the case, the trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. He abjured the guilt pleaded

innocence.

After considering the entire prosecution evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the

IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

Appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order on the ground that there are several material discrepancies. Learned trial Court

wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of testimony of interested witnesses. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.

The whole prosecution story is doubtful. Therefore, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and he be acquitted of the charge

levelled against him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence

under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may not be acquitted from the charge levelled against him.

The question for determination is that:

Whether the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the offence.

In this regard, the testimony of Balmukund (PW-1) is important. He was the village Sarpanch. He clearly supported by the entire prosecution

story. He has stated that on the date of incident at about 6:00-7:00 a.m., Jagotiya Bai (since deceased) came to his house to make a complaint

against the appellant that the appellant threatened to kill her. She also informed that she was beaten by the appellant. This version is also

corroborated by Munni Bai (PW-6) that Jagotiya Bai came to her house at about 7:00 a.m..

Balmukund (PW-1) deposed that he had some domestic work and after completing the work, he heard a voice of Jagotiya Bai and when he

reached the spot, he saw that the appellant was assaulting Jagotiya Bai with his crutches. He also deposed that his wife Munni Bai (PW-6) clearly

stated that both of them saw the appellant on the spot. They also stated that Jagotiya Bai sustained some injuries at the time of incident. It is further

stated by Balmukund (PW-1) that he objected and asked the appellant why he was assaulting Jagotiya Bai, to which the appellant replied that

Jagotiya Bai lodged a report against him.

Similarly, Munni Bai (PW-6) deposed that the appellant confessed before her that he assaulted Jagotiya Bai. The testimony of above witnesses

was not rebutted in their cross-examination, hence found reliable against the appellant because at the time of incident their presence is quite natural

on the spot on their premises. They had no ulterior motive against the appellant. Balmukund (PW-1) and Munni Bai (PW-6) are independent

witnesses, hence their testimony cannot be brushed aside.

Bihari Lal (PW-7) and Charan Singh (PW-9) are residents of the same village. Both the witnesses establish the dispute between the appellant

and deceased Jagotiya Bai. Bihari Lal (PW-7) further deposed that a day prior to the incident, Jagotiya Bai came to his house and told him that

she wanted to stay with them at their house. Next morning, the appellant came to his house and attempted to beat her. Jagotiya Bai was rescued

by Bihari Lal (PW-7). The testimony of Bihari Lal (PW-7) is very relevant under Sections 6 & 8 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to the

intention and prior conduct of the appellant against Jagotiya Bai. The appellant was annoyed with Jagotiya Bai, therefore, he tried to beat her.

Balmukund (PW-1) deposed that after the incident, he communicated about the incident to Jona Bai daughter of Jagotiya Bai and her son

Santosh (PW-4), Parkhat Singh (PW-10) to report the matter at police station but on the way, Jagotiya Bai died.

Inspector R.S. Baghel (PW-13) has established that on the date of incident, merg intimation was registered against the appellant at Police

Station, Kotma as shown in merg report Ex.P/2. He sent the dead body of deceased Jagotiya Bai for postmortem on the same day. Dr. O.P.

Choudhary (PW-8) conducted autopsy of dead body of Jagotiya Bai. As per his opinion, Jagotiya Bai was about 65 years old and she had

sustained following injuries on her body:-

(i) A lacerated wound of 3"" x 1"" x bone deep at left side of head with clotting blood,

(ii) A lacerated wound 1"" x 1/2"" x bone deep below from the injury no.1 on left side of head,

(iii) A lacerated wound 1"" x 1/2"" x bone deep on back side of head with clotting blood.

Dr. O.P. Choudhary (PW-8) found three fractures on skull and the brain was ruptured.

In our opinion, at the age of 65 years, the deceased was not in a position to survive the aforesaid injuries sustained on her vital part. She had

sustained injuries on her head, which fractures the skull and ruptured her brain. Looking to the nature and number of injuries, the intention of the

appellant was to cause death of deceased Jagotiya Bai.

Dr. O.P. Choudhary (PW-8) clearly opined that deceased Jagotiya Bai died due to shock because of excessive bleeding from her head

injuries within 12-25 hours from the postmortem. Doctor duly proved the postmortem report Ex.P.13, which supports the prosecution story. Thus,

we hold that there is no inconsistency or discrepancies between the medical or direct evidence.

In case of Sanjay Khanderao Wadane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 11 SCC 842, in which it was held that medical evidence plays a very

crucial role, evidence of medical person is an opinion, which lands corroboration of direct evidence of the case. A medical witness who performs a

postmortem examination is a witness of fact though he also gives an opinion on certain aspect of the case. The value of a medical witness is not

merely a check upon the testimony of eyewitnesses; it is also independent testimony because it may establish certain facts quite apart from the

other oral evidence.

R.S. Baghel (PW-13) has seized a resolution of Gram Panchayat vide seizure memo Ex.P/9 in which father of the appellant has compromised

the matter with Parkhat Singh, Santosh, Ram Singh, Jona Bai and Jagotiya Bai. It was held that said dispute took place due to witchcraft. Shri

Baghel (PW-13) has also seized soil with blood stains from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P.8 and crutches from the possession of appellant as

per seizure memo Ex.P/6. Shri Baghel sent these crutches to doctor for query whether the injuries can be caused by such crutches. Dr. Choudhary

(PW-8) has positively opined that the injuries may be caused by such crutches.

In our considered opinion, such injuries are sufficient to cause death of the deceased. There is no contradiction or omission between the

medical evidence or ocular evidence. In case of ""Kamla Kant Dubey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and State of Uttar Pradesh and Basant

Lal Dubey and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 145, it was held that if the medical evidence completely corroborated the ocular version,

establish that the injuries may be caused by weapon used by the accused. No delay in lodging the FIR, testimony of witnesses found trustworthy

and motive lending complete corroboration. FSL report also corroborates the prosecution evidence. It was confirmed that blood was present in

the soil recovered from the seen of occurrence as stated by the prosecution witnesses. Thus, it was held that accused can be legally convicted for

committing offence.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, we are of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, appeal deserves to be dismissed and hence, it is dismissed.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance alongwith the record.