Gopal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.08.2003 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in S.T. No.253/2002, the appellant

has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C., whereby he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and

sentenced for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

Brief facts of the case are that a Gram Panchayat house was being constructed at village Chinda and Sarpanch of that village has got placed

some bags of cement at the house of Summilal, who lived inside the house of Lal Singh. At the time of incident, Lal Singh was sitting in ""Parchhi"" of

his house with his nephew Summilal. Just then, Deolal came there and complained that he caught the theft of cement, which was brought to make

the Gram Panchayat House but it was used by them to construct their own house. The appellant S/o Summilal came out from his house armed with

an axe to object Deolal for his complaining, then the appellant assaulted him by axe on his neck. Deolal fell down on the earth and thereafter, the

appellant again gave 2-3 blows upon Deolal by axe and ran away from the spot with axe. Deolal died on the spot. Thereafter, Lal Singh lodged

FIR at Police Station Harrai. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court of ACJM.

After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. He abjured his guilt and

pleaded that he was falsely implicated due to serious enmity on account of Gram Panchayat election.

After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Court has found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased.

Hence, he was convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment.

The appellant has challenged the aforesaid finding on the grounds that learned trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of contradictory

evidence of prosecution witnesses. The appellant tried to save his father during the incident and due to sudden provocation given by the deceased

to the appellant and his father by alleging the theft of cement. Hence, the prosecution story is wholly unreliable and suspected. The conclusion of

learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the charge levelled against him.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence

under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may not be acquitted from the charge levelled against him.

It is not in dispute that the deceased Deolal died on 31.08.2002. As per spot map (Ex.P/15), the dead body of deceased was found in front of

the house of appellant. FIR Ex.P/16 was promptly lodged by Lal Singh. The appellant lived with his father Summilal in the house of Lal Singh. A

named FIR was lodged against the appellant. In the FIR, it was mentioned that when the deceased was complaining about misusing of cement for

constructing the house of Summilal (father of appellant), the appellant came from his house with an axe and inflicted 2-3 blows by axe over the

neck and head of deceased. Similarly, with the above facts, FIR was lodged by the police and investigation was started against the appellant.

The dead body of deceased was sent for conducting the postmortem. Dr. B.K. Puriya (PW-12) conducted postmortem of body of the

deceased and found following injuries on his person:-

(i) Incised wound about 7.5 cm. x 2 1/2 cm. into bone deep above left ear upto mid part of neck,

(ii) Incised wound about 4.5 cm x 2 1/2 cm. x muscles deep on the head. Another incised wound near the said wound about 4.5 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. x

bone deep over left side of head.

During internal examination, Dr. B.K. Puriya (PW-12) found a fracture over occipital bone. Dr. Puirya opined that deceased Deolal died due to

shock because of excessive bleeding from the injuries.

We find that the postmortem report Ex.P/13 was duly proved by Dr. B.K. Puriya, who established that on the date of incident, deceased

sustained fatal injuries over his neck and head, which were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. The injuries were homicidal in nature.

Therefore, the medical evidence is duly supported the prosecution case.

The prosecution examined Lal Singh (PW-2) as an eyewitnesses, who deposed that cement, which was allotted for construction of Gram

Panchayat House was being used by Summilal father of the appellant to construct his own house and while raising objection by the deceased

Deolal against father of appellant, the appellant came there with an axe and quarreled with the deceased. Lal Singh (PW-2) interfered to separate

them, then the appellant inflicted blows by axe on the neck and head of the deceased and ran away from the spot. Lal Singh (PW-2) went to the

police station and lodged FIR against the appellant. According to the version of Lal Singh (PW-2), we do not find any inconsistency with the FIR

lodged by him.

Ku. Parvati Bai (PW-4) and Tejilal (PW-10) corroborated the testimony of Lal Singh (PW-2). Their testimony is also corroborated by Dhan

Singh (PW-11). They were present nearby the scene of occurrence. Dhan Singh (PW-11) has also admitted that at the time of assault, he was

present in the room and after hearing noise from the outside, he came out from his house and saw that the appellant was running from the spot. Just

after the incident, he heard that the appellant caused death of deceased. We do not find any contradiction or omission with regard to the original

prosecution case against the appellant that the appellant caused death of the deceased in front of house of Lal Singh (PW-2).

Sub-inspector Rajendra Prasad Agrawal (PW-15) prepared spot map Ex.P/10, which shows that incident took place in front of Lal Singh''s

house. On the next day of incident, Rajendra Prasad Agrawal (PW-15) recorded the statements of witnesses Lal Singh, Tikaram, Dinesh,

Ramesh, Mangal, Mansingh, Savita. He also recorded the memorandum of appellant. The appellant stated about weapon, which was hidden by

him in a grain store container of his house. As per memorandum of the appellant, he recovered axe before the witnesses namely Man Singh (PW-

3) and Dinesh (PW-2) and seizure memo Ex.P/2 was prepared. Man Singh (PW-3) partly corroborated the testimony of Rajendra Prasad

Agrawal (PW-15) about recovery of incriminating weapon from the custody of appellant as shown in seizure memo Ex.P/2. His testimony was not

rebutted with regard to seizure of weapon from possession of appellant. Rajendra Prasad Agrawal (PW-15) had sent the weapon to Dr. B.K.

Puriya (PW-12) for query. Dr. B.K. Puriya (PW-12) examined the seized weapon and opined that the injuries may be caused by such

weapon/axe. Police sent all the articles along with weapon to FSL, Sagar. As per FSL report Ex.P/18, blood stains were found on the axe seized

from the possession of appellant. The appellant had not offered any plausible explanation about the source of blood on the axe and therefore, it is

established that the appellant caused murder of deceased Deolal by using the seized weapon/axe.

The appellant caused three fatal injuries on the vital parts of deceased, which resulted the death of deceased immediately on the spot. We are

not inclined to accept the contention of appellant that the appellant has committed offence due to sudden provocation and act of the appellant falls

under the condition prescribed in category (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Hence, it is established that the appellant committed murder of

deceased, which comes under the purview of Section 302 of the IPC.

In view of above discussion, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. The trial Court has not committed any error in

convicting and sentencing the appellant. According, appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.

The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender immediately before the concerned trial Court to undergo the remaining jail sentence, failing

which the trial Court shall take appropriate action.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance along with its record.