Chandan Singh & Anr. vs State of M.P.

This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the

Cr.P.C . filed on behalf of the appellant/accused Ramsujan @

Munda Kol is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2006

passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Amarpatan, District Satna in Sessions Trial No. 191/2005,

whereby the accused/appellant Ramsujan was convicted

under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo

life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-.

2(a) The prosecution case before the trial Court in a

nutshell was that appellant/accused Ramsujan and deceased

Bhoori Bai lived in the same village. A few dates before the

date of the incident, appellant/accused Ramsujan had

purchased eggs from the deceased Bhoori Bai without paying

for the same. When Bhoori Bai used to demand the price of

the eggs from accused Ramsujan, he used to tell her that eggs

were rotten; therefore, he would not pay for them. On

aforesaid account, abuses were heard and blows were

exchanged between the accused and the deceased.

(b) At about 9:00 a.m. on 8.7.2005, deceased Bhoori Bai

had gone to jungle with Suman (PW-4), Ramwati (PW-5),

Savitri (PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW9) to collect

firewood. When they were returning to the village with

firewood, accused Ramsujan met them under the hillock. He

was carrying a small axe (tangi). Suddenly, accused

Ramsujan started assaulting Bhoori Bai with the axe. Bhoori

Bai fell down and bled profusely. Her companions Suman,

Ramwati, Savitri, Sita and Ranno threw down the clusters of

firewood they were carrying and ran towards the village in a

panic-stricken condition shouting "murder ho gaya murder ho

gaya".

(c) At the time of the incident, Vishram (PW-1), husband

of deceased Bhoori Bai, was on the hillock, grazing his goats.

When he heard the screams and shouts of aforesaid women,

he rushed to the spot and found that Bhoori Bai was lying in a

pool of blood. She had sustained injuries to her throat,

back, hand and head etc. She was unconscious. He saw

accused Ramsujan running towards the hills. Vishram

accompanied by the village people went after him in hot

pursuit; however, the accused ran for about 6-7 kms. and

reached Chowki Ghat. Assuming that the village people had

given up the pursuit, he started to wash his blood-stained shirt

and pant; however, Vishram persisted with the chase. He tried

to catch the accused. When the accused saw Vishram, he

jumped into Ban Sagar Water Reservoir on river Sone and

swam for about 3-4 kms. and reached Brodha Village in

district Shahdol. Thereafter, Vishram returned.

(d) Meanwhile, Bhoori Bai was brought by villagers to the

village but she succumbed to her injuries. At about 1:10 p.m.

the same day, Ramdas lodged first information report of the

incident in P.S. Ram Nagar, District Satna. During

investigation, blood-stained clothes of accused were seized

from Chowki Ghat upon Ban Sagar Water Reservoir. The

accused could be arrested only on 17.7.2005. After due

investigation, charge sheet in the matter was filed.

The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of

the I.P.C. against the accused. He abjured the guilt and

claimed to be tried. In his examination under Section 313 of

the Cr.P.C., neither he did take any specific defence, nor did

he examine any witness in defence.

After the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge held

on the basis of the statement of Vishram (PW-1) that the

prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable

doubt that there was previous enmity between the accused

and the deceased on account of failure of the accused to repay

the price of the eggs purchased by him from the deceased. It

was also held to be proved on the basis of the statement of

Dr. R.P. Garg (PW-14), who had conducted post-mortem

examination of the dead body of the deceased that she had

sustained 8 incised wounds on upper part of her body caused

by hard and sharp object and she had died due to syncope as a

result of excessive bleeding from the wounds. As such her

death was homicidal in nature. On the basis of the deposition

of eye witnesses Suman (PW-4), Ramwati (PW-5), Savitri

(PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9) it was held that the

accused had assaulted the deceased with an axe and had

inflicted numerous injuries on her back, neck and head etc.

As a result, she died shortly after the incident. Keeping in

view the conduct of the deceased before and after the

incident, as brought forth by the statements of the prosecution

witnesses particularly Vishram (PW-1), the trial court was

also of the opinion that there was no reason to believe that

due to unsoundness of mind, the accused cound not

appreciate the nature of his act and that what he was doing

was either wrong or contrary to law. Consequently, the

accused was convicted and sentence as herein above stated.

The conviction and the sentence of the appellant has

been challenged before us by learned counsel for the

appellant, mainly on the grounds that the trial Court failed to

properly appreciate the evidence and erred grievously in

holding that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

I.P.C . was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the

appellant. Learned trial Court failed to give due importance to

infirmities in the prosecution case. It has been argued that the

police had failed to recover the weapon of offence during the

investigation. The trial Court attached no significance to the

fact that there was no motive for the appellant for killing the

deceased. A trivial altercation between the appellant and the

deceased on account of alleged failure of the appellant to

repay the price of eggs to the deceased, was not strong

enough a motive to prompt a man of common prudence to

commit murder of someone. Absence of motive throws doubt

upon the prosecution case. Even if it is assumed for the sake

of argument that the appellant did indeed kill the deceased for

such a weak motive, it is indicative of the fact that he was of

unsound mind and at the time of the offence was incapable of

knowing the nature of his act or that what he was doing what

was wrong or contrary to law; therefore, he was entitled to the

protection of Section 84 of the I.P.C.

Learned Government Advocate for the

respondent/State on the other hand has supported the

impugned judgment on the ground that the conviction is

based upon unimpeachable testimony of as many as 5 eye

witnesses; therefore, total lack or weakness of motive would

not render the conviction unsustainable. It has further been

argued that the conduct of the appellant prior and subsequent

to the attack clearly indicates that at the time of the offence he

was of a sound mind. It has also been contended that failure

of the police to recover the weapon of offence would not

adversely affect the finding of guilt.

On going through the record of the case and on due

consideration of rival contentions, the Court is of the view

that this criminal appeal against conviction must fail for the

reasons hereinafter stated:

It is not in dispute that the deceased Bhoori Bai had

sustained eight injuries caused by hard and sharp cutting

object and had died as a result of syncope caused by

excessive bleeding from the wounds. Thus, the nature of her

death was homicidal.

Now the question that arises for consideration is

whether it was the appellant, who had caused aforesaid

injuries to the deceased? In support of the prosecution case,

five witnesses namely Suman (PW-4), Ramwati (PW-5),

Savitri (PW-6), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9) have been

examined. Out of these five witnesses only Suman was major.

Remaining eye witnesses Ramwati (PW-5), Savitri (PW-6),

Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9) were minor. The gist of their

deposition is that on the date of the incident they had gone

along with deceased Bhoori Bai to collect firewood in the

jungle. When they were returning to the village, the appellant

arrived and assaulted the deceased with an axe upon her

temple, neck and head etc. As a result, the deceased fell down

and the appellant ran away. Upon hearing the commotion,

Vishram (PW-1), husband of the deceased, reached the spot.

He chased the accused but the accused crossed the hill. The

accused started to wash his clothes near Chowki Ghat. When

the appellant realized that he has been followed, he again

started to run. He threw his clothes and axe on the way. When

Vishram crossed the hill, accused jumped in river Sone and

swam a distance of about two and half kms. towards village

Barodha. Meanwhile, the deceased was taken by villagers to

the village, where she succumbed to her injuries.

It is true that one of the child eye witnesses namely

Savitri (PW-6) has admitted in her cross-examination that she

was accompanied to the Court by Vishram, Mangal Deen and

Ram Sakha and they had told her as to what kind of statement

is to be given by her. She has also admitted that on the date of

the incident, she was at her home and had reached the spot on

hearing the commotion; however, the prosecution has

examined as many as five eye witnesses. Even if it is assumed

for the sake of arguments that this particular child witness had

been tutored by others, it does not dent the testimony of other

4 witnesses. Nothing could be brought out in the examination

of other four eye witnesses, to discredit the prosecution story

or supported the theory that it was not accused Ramsujan but

someone else who had assaulted the deceased. The eye

witnesses included child witnesses who could not be said to

hold any grudge against the appellant. They had no reason to

falsely implicate the appellant. The prosecution story as

brought forth in the statements of these eye witnesses, is

natural and does not suffer from any inherent infirmity or

improbability. Thus, there is absolutely no ground to

disbelieve four eye witnesses, namely Suman (PW-4),

Ramwati (PW-5), Ranno (PW-7) and Sita (PW-9). Their

statements cannot be disbelieved simply because they were

related to the deceased because it was only natural for the

family members to go together to collect the firewood.

It is true that during the course of investigation, the

police had failed to recover the weapon of offence; however,

this is not a case based upon circumstantial evidence. It rests

on the solid foundation of eye witness accounts. The court

has held that the statement of eye witnesses (with possible

exception of Savitri (PW-6) are worthy of credence. In these

circumstances, mere failure of the investigating agency to

recover the weapon of offence would not discredit the entire

prosecution case.

The Supreme Court in the case of Tama Vs. West

Bengal AIR 2008 SC 12 has held that:

When the testimonies of two eye-witnesses had been believed by the learned Trial Judge as also by the High Court and in view of the fact that we did not see any reason to differ with the findings of the two Courts, in our opinion, the fact whether the bloodstains collected from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer had been sent to the Forensic Expert for chemical examination or not, pales into insignificance. We are furthermore of the opinion that whether the knife was recovered or not is also not of much importance.

In aforesaid circumstances, not much importance can

be attached to the fact that weapon of the offence was not

seized in this case.

The next point that has been raised by learned counsel

for the appellant was absence or insufficiency of motive. It is

true that the only motive that has been given by Vishram

(PW-1), husband of the deceased for the offence is that there

was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased on

account of the fact that the appellant had purchased eggs from

the deceased and had not paid for the same. When the

deceased demanded her money, the appellant claimed that the

eggs were rotten and they had germinated; therefore, the

appellant would not pay their price.

In our opinion, ordinarily, such a motive would not be

considered to be strong enough for an offence like murder.

However, it is settled principle of law that where a case is

based upon direct evidence, correctness of conviction cannot

be tasted on the touchstone of motive. The guilt of the

accused cannot be challenged merely on the ground of

absence or inadequacy of motive, where the offence has been

established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of

unimpeachable eye witness accounts. If any authority is

needed for aforesaid proposition of law, it is Om Prakash

Vs. State of Uttranchal, 2003 (1) Crimes 180 (SC). Thus,

the argument of learned counsel for the appellant regarding

inadequacy of motive, is not acceptable.

Last question that remains to be considered is whether

at the time of the offence, owing to unsoundness of the mind,

the appellant was incapable of realizing the nature of his act

or was incapable of realizing that what he was doing so either

wrong or contrary to law?

In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has

again invited attention of the Court to the statement of child

witness Savitri (PW-6), who has admitted in her cross-

examination that in her caste "choura" is applied to exorcise

someone. She has further admitted that appellant''s father used

to apply "choura" for treating the mental condition of the

appellant; however, it may be noted here that the same

witness Savitri has categorically stated in her cross-

examination that appellant was not insane. Suman (PW-4) has

also specifically denied that the deceased was mentally ill.

She has also denied that father of the appellant used to take

the appellant to pilgrimage to get him treated for his mental

condition. She has also denied that the appellant did not have

capacity to think due to any mental illness. Likewise Ramwati

(PW-5) has denied any knowledge of the fact that the

appellant had turned insane four days before the date of the

incident. Thus, on the basis of statements of prosecution

witnesses, it cannot be said that on the date of the incident,

the appellant was of unsound mind. The appellant has not

examined any witness in defence either to establish the fact

that on the date of the incident he was of unsound mind. He

has not even made a mention about any such illness in his

examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C..

Now the question remains whether on the basis of

other circumstances, the unsoundness of mind as required for

protection under Section 84 of the I.P.C., may be inferred. It

was argued before the trial Court that since the appellant had

jumped into a huge reservoir of water like Ban Sagar Dam, it

should be inferred that he was of unsoundness of mind.

Witness Vishram (PW-1) has stated that the appellant had

swam a distance of about two and half kms. and had reached

village Barohi on the other side of the reservoir. This fact

indicates that he was a good swimmer and in order to escape

from being caught, he had jumped into the reservoir. Thus, it

was a conscious decision on the part of the appellant based

upon the assessment of his capability as a swimmer. This by

itself, does not indicate that he was mentally ill on the date of

the offence.

It is true that the motive put forth by the

prosecution for the offence appears to be inadequate.

However, the Supreme Court has held in the case of Seralli

Wali Mohammad vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972

SC 2443, the Supreme Court has held that:

The law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the offence. The mere fact that no motive was proved as to why the accused had murdered his wife and child nor the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, could not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence.

It is also true that this Court, by its order dated

13.8.2016 had released the appellant on temporary bail on the

ground of mental illness. Aforesaid order was passed on the

ground of medical report received from Psychiatrist of

Gwalior Mental Hospital. It was stated in the report that the

appellant suffers from Psychosis and required Psychiatric

treatment. However, it may be noted that it is not every kind

of mental infirmity that clothes a person with immunity. It is

stated that plea of unsoundness of mind needs to be

specifically taken and proved. It is to be established that at the

time of the incident, the offender was suffering from mental

illness of such a nature that he was incapable of knowing the

nature of his act or that he was incapable of appreciating that

what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to the law.

In the instant case, after assaulting the deceased the

appellant ran away from the spot. He not only crossed the hill

but also jumped in the reservoir to evade arrest and

consequent detention. He also tried to wash his blood-stained

clothes. This conduct on the part of the appellant was clearly

indicative of his guilty mind and of his desire not only to

avoid arrest and consequent detention but also to obliterate

the evidence of his crime. In these circumstances, it cannot be

said that the appellant, at the time of the offence, was unable

to appreciate the nature of his act. Thus, the protection of

Section 84 of the I.P.C. was rightly denied to him by the trial

Court.

No other point has been raised by the learned counsel

for the appellant during the course of arguments.

In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that

the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting the

appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and imposing life

imprisonment and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/- upon the

appellant and there is no ground for interfering with the

impugned judgment.

Consequently this criminal appeal is dismissed. The

conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

recorded by the trial court and sentence of life imprisonment

and fine imposed upon him is affirmed.