Dr. Ajay Chandrawat & Ors. vs State of M.P. & Anr

This Criminal Appeal against conviction under

section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 filed on behalf of appellant/accused Ram Kishan

is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2005

passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Raisen in

Sessions Trial No.193/2004; whereby accused Ram

Kishan was convicted of the offences punishable under

Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed

to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the

sum of Rs.2000/- and under section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code and was directed to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a

fine in the sum of Rs.2000/-. Both the substantive

sentences were directed to run concurrently and in

default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six

months under each of the aforesaid two provisions.

2 (a). The prosecution case in nutshell was that

accused persons Ram Kishan, Govind, Jamuna Bai and

Narayani Bai were on inimical terms with deceased

Bablu and his wife Kranti Bai for two months next

before the date of the incident. They used to abuse

Bablu and Kranti Bai while going from in front of their

house. At about 07:30 a.m. on 31.08.2004, accused

persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai were returning

after answering the call of nature. Deceased Bablu was

going to work at Fateh Singh''s place. His wife Kranti

Bai and mother Jamuna Bai were also present on the

spot. At that time, accused persons Jamuna Bai and

Narayani Bai started to abuse the deceased and called

accused persons Ram Kishan and Govind, who came to

the spot armed with axe and ballam, respectively.

Accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai also

went inside their house and returned with sticks. Ram

Kishan and Govind assaulted deceased Bablu with axe

and ballam, respectively. Ram Kishan and Govind

inflicted several blows with axe and ballam upon

hands, legs and chest of deceased Bablu. As a result,

he died on the spot. His wife Kranti Bai ran in to

rescue her husband. However, Ram Kishan also beat

Kranti Bai with axe. As a result, she suffered injuries

to her right hand, shoulder, left hand and right thigh.

Bablu''s mother, also named Jamuna Bai, tried to rescue

her son but accused Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai also

beat her with sticks. As a result, she fell down. On

hearing cries of Kranti Bai, her father-in-law Phool

Singh, brother-in-law Balkishan, neighbour Fulwati Bai

and other persons reached the spot and witnessed the

incident.

(b). Kranti Bai informed Fateh Singh, who

lodged first information report in P.S. Umraoganj

District-Raisen at about 08:30 a.m., the same morning.

In the post-mortem examination, it was found that

deceased Bablu had died a homicidal death as a result

of excessive bleeding and incised wounds to his vital

organ lungs. Hise wife Kranti Bai had sustained

multiple incised wounds and when admitted to the

hospital, she was in a serious condition due to profuse

bleeding. Jamuna Bai, the mother of deceased Bablu,

had also sustained a fracture in the metacarpal bone of

her hand.

(c). During investigation, on the disclosure

statement made under section 27 of the Evidence Act,

by accused Ram Kishan, the axe used in the incident,

was recovered from his house. Likewise, on the

disclosure statement made by Govind, a ballam was

recovered from his house. In the same manner, on the

disclosure statements made by accused persons Jamuna

Bai and Narayani Bai, sticks used in the offence, were

recovered. In the Serological examination conducted in

the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, blood was

found on the axe and blood of human origin, was found

on the ballam.

After the investigation, charge sheet was filed

against accused persons Ram Kishan, Govind Singh,

Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai under section 302, 307,

326, 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code;

however, it was held by learned Sessions Judge by his

order dated 08.09.2005 that on the date of the offence,

the age of accused Govind Singh was below 18 years;

therefore, his trial was separated and the police was

directed to file separate charge sheet against him before

the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned Sessions Judge;

thereafter, proceeded with the trial of remaining

accused persons namely Ram Kishan, Narayani Bai and

Jamuna Bai.

A charge was framed against aforesaid three

accused persons under sections 302, 307 and 325 and in

the alternative 302, 307 and 325 read with section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons abjured the

guilt and claimed to be tried. In their statements under

section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they stated that they were

innocent and had been falsely implicated as a result of

previous enmity.

After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge

recorded findings to the effect that the prosecution has

not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that

injuries inflicted upon Bablu and Kranti Bai by accused

persons Ram Kishan and Govind Singh had not been

inflicted in furtherance of their common intention with

co-accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai. It

was also held that the prosecution had also failed to

prove that accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani

Bai had participated in the incident in any manner or

more specifically, had caused any injuries to Jamuna

Bai, the mother of the deceased. It was also held that it

was doubtful whether Jamuna Bai, the mother of

deceased, had sustained any injuries in the incident.

Consequently, accused persons Jamuna Bai and

Narayani Bai were acquitted of all charges. However,

the trial Court had held that the prosecution had

succeeded in proving that accused Ram Kishan had

delivered axe blows to the deceased Bablu and his wife

Kranti bai with the intention of causing their death;

therefore, he was convicted under section 302 for

committing murder of deceased Bablu and under

section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to

commit murder of Kranti Bai and sentenced him as

stated above.

Learned counsel for appellant Ram Kishan has

assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the trial

Court mainly on the grounds that the trial Court had

disbelieved the testimony of Balkishan (PW-1), who is

brother of the deceased and Jamuna Bai (PW-2), who

was mother of the deceased. Likewise, it did not place

reliance upon the part of the testimony of Kranti Bai

(PW-10) relating to the role of accused persons

Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai in the incident. However,

on the same body of evidence, appellant Ram Kishan

was convicted. It has also been contended that the trial

Court erred in holding that the injuries sustained by

deceased Bablu were caused by appellant Ram Kishan.

As such, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of

appellant Ram Kishan beyond reasonable doubt;

therefore, he deserves the benefit of doubt.

Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on

the other hand has supported the prosecution case.

On perusal of the record and due consideration of

rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this

appeal must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:

The prosecution has examined four eyewitnesses

namely Balkishan (PW-1), Jamuna Bai (PW-2), Daulat

Bai (PW-5) and Kranti Bai (PW-10). Out of them,

Kranti Bai (PW-10) and Jamuna Bai (PW-2) are said to

be injured eyewitnesses. All four are related witnesses.

The gist of their evidence is that at the time of the

incident deceased Bablu, husband of Kranti Bai (PW-

10), was leaving for work. At that time, accused

persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai were going to

ease themselves. On their way, they picked corn-cobs

from the field of the deceased. An altercation ensued.

They shouted and called their father Ram Kishan and

brother Govind Singh. Ram Kishan and Govind arrived

on the spot armed with an axe and a ballam,

respectively. Accused persons Jamuna Bai and

Narayani Bai were also armed with sticks. Ram Kishan

and Goving assaulted Bablu with axe and Ballam

cutting his chest open. When Kranti Bai tried to rescue

her husband, Ram Kishan and Govind also assaulted

her. Ram Kishan delivered blows to her with axe. As a

result, she sustained injuries in head, right hand and

right leg. Govind also assaulted her with a ballam,

resulting in injuries to her chest and head. Narayani Bai

and Jamuna Bai assaulted her in head, back and

stomach with sticks. Jamuna Bai, the mother of the

deceased, had reached the spot and she tried to

intercede in the matter but accused persons Jamuna Bai

and Narayani Bai also beat her with sticks. As a result,

Bablu died on the spot and Kranti Bai fell unconscious.

Jamuna Bai, the mother of deceased, sustained injuries

to metacarpal bone of her hand.

Though, Balkishan (PW-1), claimed in his

statement that he had witnessed the incident; he is

brother of deceased Bablu and was as such a related

witness; therefore, it is incumbent upon the Court to

scrutinize his statement minutely. Daulat Bai (PW-5)

is wife of Balkishan (PW-1). Daulat Bai (PW-5) has

admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of

the incident, her husband Balkishan had gone to work

at Fateh Singh''s place. As such, he was not present on

the spot. In view of this clear admission made by his

wife Daulat Bai that he was not present on the spot, it

may not be safe to infer that had Balkishan had actually

witnessed the incident as it unfolded. He was probably

called later and on arrival he was told about the

incident by the eyewitnesses and he had also seen his

brother Bablu and Kranti Bai in injured condition.

Likewise, on due appreciation of evidence, the

trial Court has held that Jamuna Bai, the mother of

deceased, had also reached the spot later but posed as

an eyewitness. As such, the presence of aforesaid two

eyewitnesses namely Balkishan (PW-1) and his mother

Jamuna Bai (PW-2) on the spot was held to be

doubtful.

So far as Kranti Bai (PW-10) is concerned, she is

an injured eyewitness. She had sustained severe

injuries. It appears from the statement of medical

witnesses that she was on the verge of dying due to

injuries sustained by her in the incident; therefore, her

presence on the spot could not be doubted. However,

trial Court has disbelieved even her statement so far as

participation of accused persons Narayani Bai and

Jamuna Bai in the incident was concerned because of

two material discrepancies in her statements. Firstly

that Kranti Bai did not disclose in her statement before

the police (Ex.D/4) that the incident occurred because

Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai were stealing corn-cobs

from her field and secondly that as per the prosecution

story, accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai

were going to ease themselves. Kranti Bai has admitted

in her testimony that they were carrying Jugs (Lotas)

which appears to be natural. However, Kranti Bai has

further stated that after the altercation started, accused

persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai went home and

returned with sticks. This part of the statement has been

disbelieved by the trial Court; therefore, on these and

other grounds, participation of Narayani Bai and

Jamuna Bai in the incident was held to be doubtful and

they were extended the benefit of doubt.

The trial Court has relied upon the statement of

Kranti Bai and Daulat Bai, so far as role of appellant

Ram Kishan in the incident was concerned. The trial

Court has believed only that part of the statement of

Kranti Bai which was supported by medical evidence;

therefore, the statements of eyewitnesses that accused

persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai had also

assaulted the deceased with sticks has been disbelieved

because no injury caused by hard and blunt object was

found on the dead body of the deceased. In these

circumstances, no fault can be found with the approach

adopted by the trial Court.

So far as appellant Ram Kishan is concerned,

Kranti Bai has stated that he was carrying an axe. He

assaulted deceased Bablu with axe and Govind

assaulted him with a ballam. In the post-mortem

examination, three incised wounds were found on the

dead body of the deceased. These were deep wounds.

As a result, the lungs of the deceased had ruptured. As

per Dr. S.S. Rajput (PW-7), who had conducted post-

mortem examination upon the dead body of deceased

Bablu, aforesaid injuries were caused by a heavy, sharp

edged weapon. In the cross-examination, he has

categorically ruled out the possibility that such injuries

could have been caused by a ballam. In these

circumstances, it is absolutely clear that the injuries

resulting in the death of the deceased were caused by

appellant Ram Kishan. The injury no.1 was so deep that

it had not only cut the ribs but had also cut the lungs.

Thus, it can safely be inferred that aforesaid injury was

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. Two other deep injuries were caused to the

deceased with the same weapon on the shouder and

neck. Thus, the conclusions are inescapable that:

(i) the injuries were caused by appellant Ram Kishan;

(ii) they were caused with the intention of causing the

death of deceased Bablu or at any rate with the

intention of causing such injuries as were sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

So far Kranti Bai (PW-10) is concerned, she was

an injured eyewitness. As per Dr. Alok Shrivastava

(PW-8), when Kranti Bai (PW-10) was brought to him,

she was in a state of semi-consciousness due to

excessive bleeding. He had found five deep incised

wounds on the hand, left thigh, left eyebrow and palm

of her hand. As a result of injury no.1, the muscles,

blood vessels and median nerve of her hand were cut.

Her condition was serious; therefore, she was directly

shifted to the operation theater without x-ray

examination. All injuries were caused by hard and

sharp object. The witness was also eight months

pregnant. Both Kranti Bai (PW-10) and Daulat Bai

(PW-5) have stated clearly that these injuries were

caused by appellant Ram Kishan. Thus, she was

brutally assaulted by the appellant Ramkishan with axe.

As such, the trial Court has rightly held that the injuries

were caused to Kranti Bai by appellant Ram Kishan

with such intention and under such circumstances that

if witness Kranti Bai had died, appellant Ram Kishan

would have been guilty of murder.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, it is

abundantly clear that the trial Court had committed no

error in placing reliance upon the testimony of

eyewitness Kranti Bai (PW-10) and Daulat Bai (PW-5)

so far as role of appellant Ram Kishan in the incident

was concerned. Thus, on the basis of direct evidence as

well as on the basis of medical evidence, the

prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond

reasonable doubt that appellant Ram Kishan had

committed murder of deceased Bablu and had

attempted to commit murder of his wife Kranti Bai.

Thus, the trial Court has committed no error in

convicting appellant Ram Kishan under section 302 and

307 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed

under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, also not

appears to be disproportionate. Hence, there are no

grounds for interfering with the impugned judgment.

Consequently, this criminal appeal against

conviction fails. The conviction of appellant Ram

Kishan under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court

for aforesaid offences, is affirmed.

For the able assistance rendered by Shri S.D.

Mishra, Advocate to this Court as amicus curiae, we

direct the M.P. State Legal Services Authority to pay a

sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the

learned amicus curiae as honorarium for defending the

appellant in the present appeal.