Angad Singh Lodh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 302 of the IPC.,"Imprisonment for life and fine of

Rs.500/-, in default of payment of

fine amount, to suffer further

rigorous imprisonment for six

months.

consistent with his police statement.,

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any material contradiction or omission in his statement.,

Other witness Dhan Singh (PW-8) has also supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he was sitting along with the deceased and at that,

time the accused-appellant came armed with a `ballam’ and inflicted injury on the abdomen of the deceased. He also confirmed presence of,

Gabbar Singh and his father at the scene of the occurrence. He deposed that after the incident, the accused Angad had fled away from the spot and",

thereafter the deceased was brought to the Police Station on a cot. He further stated that there was previous animosity between them, as the",

deceased was in the company of Kissue, who had fired upon Angad in the year 2001 and Jawahar was also one of the accused in the said case.",

From evaluation of the depositions of these two prosecution witnesses it is established that there was motive on the part of the accused-appellant,

to kill the deceased â€" Jawahar Singh, as he was also one of the accused in the criminal case where Kissue allegedly fired on the accused â€"",

Angad. It is also proved that there was no sudden fight at the spot when the deceased was sitting along with other persons and there was discussion,

going on about farming. At that time the accused appeared at the spot armed with a lethal weapon ballam and without any provocation, had given",

`ballam’ blows on the chest and stomach, which are vital parts of the body.",

Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive or intention on the part of the accused to lynch the",

deceased and further that there was grave provocation because of sudden fight, can also not be given credence to.",

The next plank of argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding inconsistency and incompatibility in the statements of the two,

doctors - Dr. Sanjeev Gupta (PW-1) and Dr. Yogesh Shenoi (PW-14). Dr. Sanjeev Gupta who was posted as Medical Officer in the Primary Health,

Centre, Batiagarh had first examined the deceased. He had noted down one lacerated wound on the lower part of the right side of the chest",

measuring 4 x 4 cm x muscle deep. The victim was first taken to the Primary Health Centre and thereafter he was referred to the Medical College,

for further treatment. From the medical report it is established that he had also observed one lacerated wound on the lower part of the left side of the,

chest but he had mentioned that it was 4 x 4 cm x muscle deep. It seems that without any detailed and intensive examination, he had stated that there",

was only one injury and it was muscle deep. Whereas extensive medical examination was conducted and treatment was given by Dr. Yogesh Shenoi,",

MS. Posted in the Medical College, who has stated that he had treated the deceased during his hospitalisation.",

After examining the victim externally and internally, he found one injury â€" admeasuring 4 x 4 cm on the right side of the heart in between the armpit",

which travelled upto the 6th and 7th ribs. The injury No.2 was a stab wound which was found by him between the 7th and 8th ribs and its depth was,

about one finger â€" 7 cm. and there was bleeding present. He had also found one bruise on the left side of the navel. He is the doctor who had,

referred the victim for diaphragm operation to repair the liver which was done by the chest tube drainage method.,

Thus, it is luminescent that if only one injury was found by Dr. Sanjeev Gupta (PW-1) in the Primary Health Centre in the medical check-up of the",

victim and after extensive medical examination and operation other injuries were observed by Dr. Yogesh Shenoi (PW-14), who had treated the victim",

in the Medical College during his hospitalisation, such minor inconsistency in the statements of these two doctors is immaterial.",

Though, the seizure witnesses in the present case has turned hostile but seizure of the weapon has been proved by D.N. Raj (PW-21), the",

investigating officer. He has stated that `ballam’ was seized on the disclosure statement of the accused which was hidden in the loft of the house,

of the accused. The documents which were exhibited during the course of investigation are duly signed by this witness. It is true that the doctor who,

had conducted postmortem has not been examined by the prosecution, however, admittedly the deceased was treated by Dr. Yogesh Shenoi in the",

Medical College, who has proved the preliminary treatment given by the first doctor, PW-1.",

The seizure witness â€" Chhatra Singh (PW-2) has also supported seizure of the weapon. He has admitted his signature marked at `A’ to,

‘A’ in the seizure memo. Thus, it is lucid that seizure of the weapon used for murder from a concealed place from the loft of the house of the",

accused-appellant, has been proved by the prosecution as per testimonies of the seizure witnesses and the investigation officer as well.",

Prosecution has also produced the FSL report, Ex.P24 where presence of blood has been affirmed. However, in further examination, sufficient",

amount of blood was not found present on the seized weapon.,

In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the",

appellant are of no aid to him. In Gulab Singh (supra) the Court had found that there was a sudden and grave provocation and in the heat of passion,

murder was committed by pelting stone inside the house of the deceased. It was held that there was no premeditation, as it was a case of sudden fight",

and the offence was committed in the heat of passion â€" the accused was convicted under Section 304, Part I of the IPC.",

In the case of Shahajan Ali (supra) the Apex Court also observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no premeditation and",

the occurrence took place due to altercation during discussion and there was sudden fight.,

In the case of Madhvan & Ors. (supra) also, the accused was convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under",

Section 304, Part-2 of the IPC, because the incident had occurred suddenly without any premeditation and that was the case of a free fight between",

the accused and the complainant. The said judgment was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal son of Kailash (supra). But,",

the case in hand is not a case of sudden fight or grave provocation. There was no fight between the victim and the accused. There was motive to take,

revenge. In the obtaining factual matrix, it is luminescent that the deceased was sitting along with other prosecution witnesses in the Village and they",

were discussing about the farming. All of a sudden, the accused appeared at the scene of the occurrence armed with a `ballam’ and gave ballam",

blows on the chest and abdomen of the victim-deceased, which are the vital parts of the body.",

Thus, in the present case as proved by the evidence floating on the surface, it is clearly established that the accused-appellant had intention to",

murder the deceased â€" Jawahar Singh.,

On assimilation of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court",

warranting interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.",