Godhe Singh & Anr vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.9.2008 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Case No.139/2007, by which the trial Court has held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of fine 6 months further rigorous

imprisonment to each of the appellants.

The prosecution case in brief is that in the intervening night of 3rd - 4th of May, 2007 at about 12 o’clock appellants-Godhe Singh Gond and

Govind Singh Gond with a common intention to commit murder of Suklibai had badly beaten her by means of wooden sticks.

As a result of the blows inflicted mainly on the head and face, she was injured severely and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The information

regarding the incident was given by Bhuwale Singh (PW/7), brother-in-law of the deceased Suklibai in the Police Station, Budhar and on that basis a

Marg intimation under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to PHC, Dhanpuri and it was

opined by the doctor that the cause of death of the deceased was the injuries inflicted on the vital parts of the body and the death was homicidal in

nature. On the basis of marg intimation an FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered under Crime No.176/2007 for the offence under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation statements of eye witnesses and other main witnesses of the incident have been recorded. The

accused persons were taken into custody. During the course of interrogation, they have given the information regarding wooden sticks which they had

used in the crime. The same were recovered and seized in presence of witnesses and sent for chemical examination. A report in this regard has been

received and a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the Court of JMFC, Budhar, who in turn committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Shahdol who again in turn made over it to the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol for trial.

During the trial, the learned trial Court framed the charge against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

of IPC. The appellants abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence was that they are innocent. The deceased Suklibai has been killed by her

family members and because of old rivalry they have been falsely implicated. The learned trial Court after completion of the trial, convicted and

sentenced the appellants as per the impugned judgment as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned findings recorded by the trial Court suffers from perversity and non-application of

mind to the oral and documentary evidence on record. It is stated that most of the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution

are close relatives of deceased Suklibai. There are glaring contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses which have been

overlooked by the trial Court. Most of the seizure witnesses have turned hostile. The family members of deceased Suklibai were also annoyed with

deceased Suklibai because they were of the opinion that she was involved in witchcraft which had resulted in death in the family as well as cattle,

thus, Suklibai must have been killed by her family members and the appellants who were having strained relations with the family members of Suklibai

have faslely and intentionally implicated the appellants in the said crime. The appellants have stated that the prosecution has not proved the alleged

offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, thus the conviction and sentence of the appellants be set aside and they be acquitted.

Learned Govt. Advocate has supported the findings of the learned trial Court and opposed the aforesaid contentions of the defence counsel stating

that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on the statement of the eye witnesses and corroborated by medical evidence, hence no

intereference is required in the findings of the trial Court and prayed for dismissed of this appeal.

From a perusal of the statement of Dr. D.J. Mohanti (PW-9), it is clear that he has stated that he conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased

Suklibai Gond on 4.5.2007 at Community Health Centre, Dhanpuri, District Shahdol and prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P-13) and found the

following injuries on the person of the deceased :-

“(1) Lacerated wound measuring 4x1x1cms over chin.

(2) Lacerated wound measuring 1 x 1 x 1/2 cms over right forehead.

(3) Lacerated wound measuring 2 x 1 x 1/2 cms over left eyebrow.

(4) Lacerated wound measuring 1½ x 1/2 x 1/2 cms over left forehead.

(5) Incised wound measuring 2 x 1 x 3 cms over left maxilla.

(6) Incised wound measuring 8 x 1 x 5 cms over front of left ear.

(7) Lacerated wound measuring 4 x 1 x 3 cms over left ear.

(8) Lacerated wound measuring 8 x 2 x 3 cms over back of the right ear.â€​

During the postmortem the following bones were also found fractured :-

“(i) A fracture in mandible bone.

(ii) A fracture of right maxilla and left maxilla.

(iii) A fracture of nasal bone

(iv) A fracture of right and left temporal bone

(v) A fracture of left temporal boneâ€​

The doctor has opined that all the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard sharp and blunt object and that the cause of death was shock due to

injuries on the vital part of the body within 24 hours before examination and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of the

nature and the death of Suklibai was homicidal. The aforesaid version of the Dr. D.J. Mohanti has remained unimpeachable during his cross

examination too.

As far as involvement of appellants Godhe Singh Gond and Govind Singh is concerned, the prosecution has examined Baldhari Singh (PW-3),

Lakhan Singh (PW-4), Nandu Singh (PW-6) and Bhuaale Singh (PW-7) are brother-in-law (Dever), son and distant nephew of deceased Suklibai.

Out of aforesaid prosecution witness Lakhan Singh (PW-4) has become hotile, but the other prosecution witnesses Baldhari Singh (PW-3), Nandu

Singh (PW-6) and Bhuaale Singh (PW-7) have categorically stated that on the fateful night of the incident when they were preparing earthen tiles

(Khapda) from the side of their fencing they heard the cry of Suklibai, who was sleeping in the Varanda (Parchhi) of the house. They reached the

spot to save her, where they saw that appellants Godhe Singh Gond and Govind Singh were beating Sukalibai by lathies. They tried to resist them but

the appellants had threatened them not to come in their way. They also deposed that due to the injuries inflicted to deceased Suklibai, her head was

ruputured. After beating the deceased, the appellants dragged the deceased towards the fence and there also they had beaten her. They further stated

that due to so many blows on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, particularly on the head, she died on the spot.

Witness Nandu Singh (PW-6) and Bhuaale Singh (PW-7) have been thoroughly cross-examined, but no material contradictions and omissions have

come in their cross-examination and their version regarding the incident has remained consistent and reliable. During the course of examination they

have categorically denied that they have supported the prosecution version as they are the family members of the deceased Suklibai. It is revealed

from the cross-examination that they were having tense relations with deceased Suklibai because of one or the other reason. They have accepted that

they did not visit the house of Suklibai and also avoided eating any meal offered by her. In this situation although the witnesses are the family members

of Suklibai, but in view of the admission it seems that they were not having very intimate relation with Suklibai. In that situation, it cannot be said that

they would have come forward only to support the prosecution version.

It is settled law that merely because a witness is related to a victim it is not sufficient to discard his testimony. The Apex Court in the case of

Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 460) has held that Relationship of the three out of four prosecution witnesses to the murdered

man is no ground for not acting upon their testimony if it is otherwise reliable in the sense that witnesses were competent witnesses who could be

expected to be near about the place of occurrence and could have seen what happened there at the scene of occurrence.

Relationship by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of the witness, if it is othewise found be consistent and true. In this regard the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1977 SC 1822) has held that related witnesses would be the least

disposed to falsely implicate the appellant, or substitute him in place of the real culprit.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mani Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1993 SC 2453) has further held that the close relations of

the deceased would, in ordinary course of things, be the last persons to screen the actual offender and implicate others falsely.

The prosecution has also examined witnesses Mandal Singh (PW-1) and Uma Bai (PW-2) who seem to be independent eye witnesses. They have

also supported the prosecution case by deposing that on the night of the incident when they heard the cry of Suklibai, they proceeded towards the

place of incident where they saw that the appellants were beating Suklibai. Uma Bai (PW-2) has categorically stated that at the time of the incident

she had not seen that by which weapon the appellants were beating deceased-Suklibai, but in the morning she saw a stick (lathi) was lying at the place

of incident. Mandal Singh (PW1) has deposed that appellants were having wooden sticks (lathi-danda) in their hands by which they were beating

deceased-Suklibai at the time of incident whereupon she died on the spot. These witnesses had accepted that they have not caught hold the weapons

of the appellants. They have stated that they tried to stop them, but the appellants did not stop from beating the deceased. In the cross-examination of

these witnesses no remarkable contradictions or omissions have come on record and they have also remained consistent and their version is also found

to be reliable. These witnesses seem to be independent witnesses, no close relation with the deceased have been brought on record by the defence to

controvert their statements. Merely on the basis that they have not intervened and saved the deceased during the course of incident, their version

cannot be discareded. In this regard the observations given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh ( AIR

1981 SC 897) is relevant, wherein it was held that there is evidence that the deceased as well as PW-3 and PW-4 were unarmed whereas the

respondents were armed with dangerous weapons. In such a situation, it will be too much to expect of PW-3 and PW-4 to try to physically intervene

and save the two deceased.

Prosecution witness ASI, D.M. Dwivedi (PW-10) has stated that on the interrogation of appellants, they have given the information regarding the

wooden sticks (Tendu ki lakdi and Bans ki lathi) and on the basis of above said informations which were recorded in memorandums (Ex.P-11 and

Ex.P-12) those sticks were recovered vide seizure memos (Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16) at the instance of the appellants. The witnesses of these

proceedings were Baldhari Singh (PW3) and Maiku Singh (PW-8). The prosecution witness Maiku Singh (PW-8) has not supported the prosecution

version but other seizure witness Baldhari Singh (PW3) has supported the version of the prosecution by saying that the above seizure had been taken

place before him. He has deposed in his chief-examination that the concerned seizure was made from the place of incident where the wooden sticks

were lying by the police. On this point he has been cross-examined by the prosecution after declaring him hostile. He has denied that the appellants

have given the information regarding weapons used in the crime (lathis). During the course of interrogation, one lathi and one Tendu ki lakdi have been

recovered on the instance of the appellants Godhe Singh and Govind Singh by the concerned police.

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the investigating Officer, ASI, D.M. Dwivedi recovered the said wooden sticks which were used in the

said crime. One of the witnesses of the seizure proceedings has supported the prosecution version. It is apparent from the record that the wooden

sticks which were seized from the place of incident have been sent for chemical examination to the FSL, Sagar and the FSL, Report Ex.P-23 reveals

that human blood was found on the said sticks.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the eye witnesses have supported the version of the prosecution, although some of them are the

relatives of deceased Suklibai, but as stated above there seems to be no reason to disbelieve their version as their statements are consistant,

trustworthy and inspire confidence. Otherwise also the independent witnesses, as discussed above, have also supported the prosecution case by

categorically stating that in front of them the appellants armed with lathi-danda not only attacked Suklibai but also beat her to death. These witnesses

cannot be said to be chance witnesses because they are said to be the neighbours of deceased Suklibai. From the side of appellants, no such defence

has been brought on record on the basis of which it can be said that they are not the real eye witnesses of the incident. We have no reason to

disbelieve the prosecution version for any reason, which finds support from the FSL report which establishes that human blood was found on the

seized weapons.

In view of the aforesaid discussions and as a consequence thereof, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court

warranting interference. The judgment of the trial Court dated 24.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Session Case

No.139/2007 is hereby affirmed and confirmed and the conviction of the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

of IPC is hereby upheld.

The appellants who are in jail shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.

The appeal filed by the appellants, being meritless is hereby dismissed.