Babuli Kol vs State of Madhya Pradesh

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/12/2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar, District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 113/2001 convicting the appellant u/s 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In brief the case of prosecution is that Ram Kumar (hereinafter referred to as ''the deceased'') and his brother Sukhlal are the residents of Balrampur and are agriculturists. In Balrampur the nuptial home of the deceased is also there. Apart from agricultural work, the deceased was also a labourer. On 21.7.1998, the deceased on being asked by his wife Koushalya went to his nuptial home, where he started hurling abuses to his wife and children. It is also said that he was also committing Marpeet with them. On seeing this, brother of Koushalya (the appellant) who is brother-in-law of deceased dealt knife blows upon the person of the deceased as a result of which he had died. The incident took place in presence of complainant-Sukhlal. Since the incident had occurred in the night, therefore on the next day i.e. 22.7.1998 the said Sukhlal lodged the FIR in the concerning police station.

On lodging of the First Information Report, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. The investigating agency arrived at the spot; seized the dead body; seized the ordinary and blood stained earth; sent the dead body for postmortem; recorded the statements of witnesses; arrested the appellant and seized the knife which was used as weapon in the commission of offence.

After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court who committed the case to the Court of Session and from where it was received for trial.

Learned trial Judge on the basis of allegations made in the charge-sheet, charged the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC which he denied and requested for trial.

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and also placed documents Ex. P-1 to P-25 on record. The defence of the appellant is of maladroit implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, in support of his defence, he did not choose to examine any witness.

Learned trial Judge, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, came to hold that the appellant has committed the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and eventually, convicted him to suffer life imprisonment and passed the sentence which we have already mentioned herein above.

In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the sole eye-witness to the incident is brother of the deceased, namely, Sukhlal (PW-1) and the entire case rests upon the pivotal statement of this witness. Further learned counsel submits that the testimony of this witness is not worth reliable for the simple reason that he had not seen the incident and whatever has been deposed by him is nothing but concoction. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the said charge.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned trial Judge for convicting the appellant u/s 302 of the IPC. Therefore, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

On going through the statements of the witnesses, we find that there is only single eye witness Sukhlal who is brother of the deceased. Merely because he is the real brother of the deceased, would not mean that his testimony should be viewed with doubt. It is well settled in law that if the witness is having blood relation with the deceased, his testimony should be considered with great care, caution and circumspection, therefore, we shall now x-ray the testimony of this witness by keeping this well settled law in our mind. On going through the testimony of this witness Sukhlal, we find that in very specific words in his examination-in-chief he is saying that he is the resident of the same village in which the nuptial home of the deceased is there. On the date of incident, he had gone to carry his children and at that juncture he saw that some quarrel was being taken place in the open courtyard of the house of the appellant and the said quarrel was going on between the wife of the deceased, appellant and the deceased himself. During the course of quarrel and altercation, the appellant brought a knife and dealt 4-5 blows upon the person of the deceased as a result of which he had died. After causing injuries by knife the appellant fled from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, this witness had gone to the house of the Sarpanch to narrate the entire incident. Thereafter on the second day i.e. 22.7.1998, he lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-5). This witness has also proved the FIR lodged by him. On going through the cross-examination para 7 onwards, we find that nothing has been carved out from his testimony in order to disbelieve him. On the contrary, we find that the testimony of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy and the learned Trial Court did not err in placing reliance upon his testimony.

The evidence of this witness has been corroborated by the evidence of the autopsy surgeon Dr. Abhay Raj Singh (PW-9) who has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex. P-16. As per the testimony of the doctor and the postmortem report, we find that the deceased had sustained following injuries:

Stab wound spindle shaped up and down 1 1/2 '''' x 1 '''' x thoracic cavity deep just Lateral at 3'''' Left Nipple blood clot present.

Stab wound spindle shaped up and down 2 '''' x 1 '''' x thoracic cavity deep inferolateral left Nipple just 4'''' distance blood clot present.

Stab wound spindle shaped 2'''' x 1'''' Abdominal cavity deep right lateral side of behind sternal bone. Obliquely-superomedially interiorly blood clot present.

Stab would spindle shaped 2 1/2 '''' x 1 1/2 '''' x abdominal cavity with cleaned portion of small intestine just below umbilicus transversally.

All four injuries clear cut margins due to hard and sharp cutting object and grievous in nature which is dangerous to life. Ante-mortem in nature.

All these four injuries are stab wounds and thus we find that repeated blows of knife were dealt by the appellant to the deceased. Therefore, looking to the size of the injuries and the repeated blows, it cannot be said that during the course of hot altercation which was being taken place between the deceased and the appellant, he dealt the knife blows upon him and thus has committed the offence u/s 304 part-I of IPC. Thus we are of the considered view that the act of the appellant amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder.

We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant and we find that the findings so recorded are based on correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and nothing has been found perverse and thus we hereby extend our stamp of approval to those reasonings. Adjudication, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.