Faddu alias Shriram Kol vs State of M.P.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhadhen, District-Sidhi (MP), in Session Trial No.114/2007, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of RI for three months, the appellant/accused preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.

The case of prosecution in brief is that on 18.03.2007 at about 8.15 pm, the complainant Udal Paswan lodged a report in police out post Jayant of Police Station Vindhay

Nagar, Sidhi stating that at about 6.30 pm in the Village Golai Basti, he was in his house, his neighbor Satish Mallah came in his house and told him that appellant/accused Faddu and co-accused Lokai were beating your brother Samaru in the house of Lokai and thereafter, they had taken Samaru with his hands tied by rope, towards culvert No.4. Complainant Udal Singh, his mother Jeera Devi and Satish went in search of Samaru. They went to house of co-accused Lokai where they were informed by the neighbors that co-accused Lokai and Faddu had beaten Samaru and now they had taken him towards police station. On the basis of this information, Jeera Devi went towards police station and Udal and Satish went towards culvert No.4 in search of Samaru. Complainant found Samaru near the culvert, he was badly injured. His hands were tied by a ribbon and shawl and blood was oozing from his wounds. Complainant and Satish untied him. Samaru told them that in the evening he went to call on Lokai in his house and he was talking with wife of Lokai, meanwhile, the co-accused Lokai and Faddu came there and suspecting the character of wife, Lokai asked him why he came in his house in his absence,and thereafter Lokai and Faddu started beating and assaulting Samaru by lathi. They had tied the hands of Samaru and brought him near the culvert and there Faddu caught hold of him and Lokai had assaulted him by axe on his neck and face. Complainant Udal and Satish brought Samaru to police out

post Jayant. Samaru was not in a position to speak at that time. Udal had lodged first information report Ex.P-13.

Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar Panday (PW-10) recorded the FIR and sent Samaru to government hospital Badhen for medical examination. Samaru was taken to hospital where the doctor found him dead. On this information, a Merg intimation was recorded in police out post. Arun Kumar Panday S.I. conducted the inquest, prepared Punchnama of dead body and sent it for postmortem. An offence under Section 302 of IPC has been registered against the accused persons. During investigation, a spot map was prepared, on the basis of memorandum of Faddu Kol, axe was recovered and seized. From the spot near culvert No.4, a shawl, ribbon and wooden stick with blood stains were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted.

The co-accused Lokai has absconded after the incident .He is declared absconded. Learned Trial Court conducted trial of accused Faddu alone. On commencement of trial, charges were framed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused Faddu for offence under Section 302 of IPC. He abjured guilt, thereafter, the statement of 11 prosecution witnesses were recorded. Accused did not give any evidence in the defence. After completion of trial, the trial Court vide impugned judgment found appellant/accused Faddu guilty for commission of offence

punishable under Section 302 of IPC for murder of Samaru and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant/accused vehemently argued that the judgment under challenge is erroneous and is passed without appreciating the evidence on record. Further it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and in fact the incident which is alleged to have occurred, is not proved by cogent evidence by the prosecution, therefore, the conviction of the appellant/accused is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further argued present appellant has no enmity with the deceased. The identification of appellant/accused by the witnesses is also doubtful. The witnesses had admitted that the appellant/accused was not previously known to them. No property has been seized from possession of appellant/accused. There is material discrepancies appeared in prosecution evidence. They cannot be believed beyond reasonable doubt.

We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties.

After perusing the entire record of the case, it appears that, it is not disputed by the appellant/accused that the deceased Samaru had been died of injuries sustained by him at the time of incident. Doctor R.Kumar (PW-11) has performed the postmortem of body of deceased on 19.03.2007 in community health centre, Badhen. Dr. R. Kumar (PW-11) deposed in his evidence that on postmortem he found following injuries on person of body of deceased:-

i. Incised wound 3x2x1 inch alongwith cut of bone over back of scull. The brain matter came out side from the wound.

ii. Incised wound 2x2/3x2/4 inch over back of neck. iii. Abrasion and contusions on left and right shoulders 1x1/2, 1x3/4 inch

iv. Abrasion on left cheek 1-1/2x3/4 inch.

It is opined by the doctor that the injuries no.1 and 2 were caused by hard and sharp object. The death of Samaru was caused due to injury no.1, which is ante- mortem and homicidal. The statement of the doctor is corroborated by PM report Ex.p-20 given by him. The statement of doctor remained unchallenged in cross examination. Therefore, relying upon postmortem report and statement of doctor R.Kumar, the trial court has rightly arrived at findings that the deceased was died of injuries sustained by him at the time of incident, which is homicidal.

Now the question arises whether the appellant/accused Faddu @ Sriram has killed the deceased. The prosecution has examined Satish (PW-3) who had seen the appellant Faddu and co-accused Lokai beating the deceased Samaru. Satish in his statement deposed that on the date of incident at about 6.00 pm in the evening, he was returning

from the shop, he saw the accused Lokai and Faddu assaulting the deceased Samaru in the house of Lokai. Thereafter, they had tied the hands of Samaru and took him outside. Satish followed them to some distance then accused told him that they are taking Samaru to police out post, so that go and inform the parents of Samaru about this fact. Satish went to the house of Samaru and informed his brother Udal and his parents. Thereafter, Samaru''s mother went towards police out post ,and Udal and Satish went in search of Samaru in the direction where the accused persons were taking the deceased. It is further deposed by Satish that they found Samaru under a tree. He was injured. Then they have taken Samaru to police out post. When Samaru was taking to hospital he died on the way.

The statement of Satish is duly corroborated by Udal (PW- 5), Devnarayan (PW-1), Jeera Devi (PW-2) who is the brother and parents of the deceased. These witnesses had categorically deposed that at the time of incident, Satish came in to their house and informed them that Samaru was being beaten by accused Lokai and Faddu. Satish told them that accused persons had told him to inform the parents of Samaru that they are taking him to police out post.

Udal (PW-5) deposed that he went with Satish in search of his brother and found him under a tree. There was injury on his head they took him to police out-post where Udal had lodged the report Ex.P-13. Jeera Devi (PW-2) has also corroborated the statement of Satish and deposed that after receiving the information from Satish she went in search of her son Samaru to police out post. She did not find him there. While she was returning from police out post, she saw Udal and Satish carrying Samaru towards police outpost in a tempo.

Thus, from above evidence, it appears that Satish had seen appellant/accused Faddu and Lokai beating the deceased Samaru. The accused persons had tied the hand of Samaru, and took him towards place of incident. They had also told the witness Satish that they were taking Samaru to police out post and asked him to inform this fact in Samaru''s house. Satish informed immediately to Samaru''s brother and parents, thereafter, they had started search of Samaru. Samaru was found under a tree. He was badly injured. He was taken to police out post where Udal has lodged the FIR. The statements of Satish and Udal also get corroborated from FIR Ex.P-13, which has been lodged just after incident.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Satish in his statement admitted that he had never talked to Faddu. He did not know who is his father and what he does. The name of accused was told to him by persons who were present at the time of incident when accused were beating the deceased. He is not able to name that person. Therefore statement of this witness cannot be relied.He is a tutored witness.

This argument is not acceptable. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses Jeera Devi (PW-2) Udal (PW-5) Satish (PW-3) Chhote Sing (PW-6) it is found that Faddu is resident of the same village Golai where Satish lives. His house is not far away from house of Satish. Therefore naturally Satish was knowing him prior to incident although he had no knowledge about the facts where Faddu was working and who are his family members. The incident took place in the evening and accused persons were beating the deceased openly in front of neighbours and other villagers. They had taken the deceased openly towards culvert. Therefore it is quite natural that any one from the crowd might have told the witness the name of accused. Here the identity of accused is not doubtful. Therefore we cannot doubt the statement of this witness on this ground.

Thus from evidence adduced by prosecution it is found proved that accused Lokai and Faddu had assaulted the deceased in the house of Lokai and thereafter they took him towards culvert. They had tied the hands of deceased. Soon after this the deceased was found by his brother Udal in injured condition. Since Lokai had seen the deceased with his wife, therefore, he wanted to do away the deceased. This is the motive behind the incident. It is also pertinent to mention that on the basis of memorandum statement of accused Faddu, blood stained cloths and wooden stick were seized. FSL report (Ex.P/11) shows the presence of human blood on the cloths of accused. Thus, above circumstances clearly establishes the guilt of appellant/accused Faddu in causing death of deceased. The trial Court on right appreciation of the evidence recorded the finding that the appellant/accused Faddu and co-accused Lokai had formed common intention and assaulted the deceased and committed his murder by causing him fatal injuries. Thus, the trial Court had rightly found appellant/accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted him. The conviction is based on credible, clinching and reliable evidence sustainable under the law. The sentence imposed upon the appellant is adequate.

On close scrutiny of evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting any interference. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.