Jagdish Mishra vs The State of M.P. & Another

This criminal appeal has been filed assailing the impugned

judgment dated 18/04/2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh, District Damoh, in Sessions Trial No.132/2005 whereby the

appellant has been convicted under sections 302, 364(A) and 201

of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life

along with fine of Rs.100/-, imprisonment for life along with fine

of Rs.100/- and R.I for 5 years along with fine of Rs.100/-, in

default three months R.I for each of the offence.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased

Hakam Singh was missing on 18/03/2005 near about 7.00 PM and

on 19/03/2005 near about 7.00 AM in the court yard of Hakam

Singh, his aunt Ganga Bai (PW-8) found three letters in which

ransom was demanded to get back Hakam Singh alive with

threatening that he will be killed if any information is given to the

police. Thereafter some efforts were made to search him.

Thereafter on the same day senior member of the house Bhan

Singh (PW-5) went to the police station Pathariya District Damoh

along with aforesaid three letters and lodged the report about in

the incident and handed over aforesaid three letters to the police

and police recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-2 and seized aforesaid

three letters. On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR (Ex.P-13)

was registered at Crime No.73/2005 for the offences punishable

under section 364(A) of IPC. On 22/03/2005 dead body of Hakam Singh was found in the field of Ghandharv Singh of Village

Pathariya under the cover of ''Bhusaa'' and body was badly

smelling. On post mortem, it was found that death of Hakam

Singh was taken place on account of strangulation 3-4 days

before. During investigation Halki Bai @ Geeta Bai (PW-2),

Narayan Singh (PW-2) and Devendra (PW-7) disclosed that on

18/03/2005 near about 7.00 to 7.30 PM, the deceased Hakam

Singh was seen alive with the appellant/accused and thereafter

dead body of Hakam Singh was found. The appellant/accused was

arrested on 27/03/2005 and from his possession one note book

Article B was seized and seizure memo Ex.P-9 was prepared.

During the investigation with the permission of the Chief Judicial

Magistrate sample of handwriting of the accused was taken and

the seized letters and note book Article B and samples of

handwriting were sent for handwriting expert report of the

questioned documents to the State Examiner, Government of M.P.

After completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet

was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh and case

was committed to the Sessions Court and report of the

handwriting expert Ex.P-116 was received. According to the

report of handwriting expert, the aforesaid letters with regard to the demand of ransom were found to be written by the person

who written note book Article B and sample handwriting. The

learned Trial court framed charges under sections 364(A), 302

and 201 of the IPC against the appellant/accused and his plea was

recorded. He abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

The learned Trial court after completing the trial, recorded

finding of conviction of appellant for the offence punishable under

sections 364(A), 302, and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him as

mentioned above. The learned Trial court recorded aforesaid

finding of conviction mainly based on the circumstantial evidence

of last seen of deceased Hakam Singh alive in company of the

appellant and letters written by the appellant/accused with regard

to demand of Rs.50,000/- for getting back Hakam Singh alive.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid

finding of learned trial court on the ground that the evidence with

regard to the last seen of deceased in the company of

appellant/accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the

report of handwriting expert is also not true and believable as

appellant have been asked to copy down by the police forcibly and

they are fabricated. Hence it cannot be said that prosecution has proved charges beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence the appeal

be allowed and appellant/accused be acquitted.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the

respondent/State opposed the aforesaid contention of the learned

counsel for the appellant and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record, we found that in this case

there is no controversy with regard to finding of dead body of the

deceased Hakam Singh on 22/03/2005 in the field of Gandharv

Singh of village Pathariya and the dead body was covered with

''Bhusaa'' and bad smell was coming and this fact has been

proved by the testimony of Narayan Singh (PW-3) and N.S. Bais

(PW-15) Investigating Officer and lash Panchayatnama Ex.P-5. In

this case it is also not controversial that the death of the deceased

was taken place on account of strangulation 3-4 days before and

the same fact has been proved by the prosecution with the

testimony of Dr.Vijay Ambore (PW-10) and post mortem report

Ex.P-10. Thus the prosecution has proved the fact that death of

Hakam Singh was homicidal.

Now the question is that whether appellant abducted and

committed death of the deceased and also demanded ransom of Rs.50,000/- and after commission of death with intention to

disappear the evidence of crime hide the dead body of the

deceased.

As mentioned earlier, the case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence, in which Halki Bai @ Geeta Bai (PW-2)

and Devendra (PW-7) claimed that on 18/03/2005 deceased

Hakam Singh was last seen alive in the company of

appellant/accused near about 7.30 PM and thereafter deceased

was not seen alive. On perusal of the statements of Halki Bai @

Geeta Bai (PW-2) and Devendra (PW-7) we are of the view that

their statements are reliable and there is nothing on record to

consider their statement with suspicion. They are independent

and natural witnesses and have no personal grudge with the

appellant/accused and their testimony has remained

unimpeachable during their cross examination.

Apart from it, the demand of ransom by the appellant/accused

through letter Article A is also found to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Note book Article B has been seized from the

possession of the appellant/accused on 27/03/2005 after arrest of

him by seizure memo Ex.P-9 as stated by N.S. Bais, Investigating

Officer (PW-15) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-9) and correctness of their statement has been accepted by the appellant/accused

during his accused statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.

Similarly, Chappan Singh, ASI (PW-14) has stated that he with the

permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ex.P-13) collected

samples of handwriting of the appellant/accused from the jail,

which are Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-113 and the appellant/accused has

admitted correctness of this fact in his statement recorded under

section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

Ganga Bai (PW-8) has stated that on the next day of missing of

Hakam Singh near about 8.30 AM while she was grooming the

court yard of her house she found three papers, in which it was

narrated that Hakam Singh has been abducted and Rs.50,000/- be

arranged to get back him alive and she handed over the letters to

his father-in-law Bhan Singh and Vijay Ambore, S.I (PW-16) has

stated that on 19/03/2005 Bhan Singh reported the incident to

him and he recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-2 and also seized letters

Article A, A-1 and A-2 and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-3. Bhan

Singh (PW-5) has also corroborated the same fact and N.S. Bais,

Investigating Officer (PW-15) has stated that the aforesaid letters

and Article B and sample of handwriting were sent to the State

Handwriting Examiner with the memo Ex.P-115 and got report of Handwriting Examiner which is Ex.P-116. As per the report, the

questioned documents Q-1 to Q-3 are the letters Articles A, A-1,

and A-2 and handwriting mark A-1 to A-111 (in which A-1 to A-100

are sample handwriting of the accused and A-101 to A-111 part of

the handwriting content of note book Article B) have been written

by the same person. The correctness of the report Ex.P-116 has

not been challenged. During the accused examination,

appellant/accused has not specifically denied the correctness of

the report. The report has been given by State Examiner,

Government of Bhopal of the questioned documents as a public

servant, which is admissible in view of the provision of section

292 of the Cr.P.C and section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act.

In the appeal memo, it''s correctness or admissibility has not

been challenged. In this regard the contention of the

appellant/accused is that the letter (Article A) is fabricated and

was got the same written by police forcibly but this contention

has not substance as during the statement of the concerned

witnesses, no suggestion has been given with regard to aforesaid

defence. Appellant/accused during examination of him under

section 313 of the Cr.P.C has not disclosed anything with regard

to compelling or forcefully written letter Article A in his handwriting or any sample of his handwriting. Therefore in this

regard prosecution evidence are reliable and it is found proved

beyond the reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused has

written letter Article A and in the Article A author claimed that

deceased Hakum Singh was in his possession and if Rs.50,000/-

was not arranged, the dead body of Hakum Singh will be sent to

his house. As the letter Article A has been written by the

appellant/accused, which proved admission of the

appellant/accused that he abducted the deceased for getting

ransom. This fact and circumstance corroborate the circumstance

of last seen with the company of the deceased and these facts and

circumstances in absence of any explaination, proved the fact

beyond the reasonable doubt that appellant/accused abducted the

deceased for getting ransom of Rs.50,000/- under threat to

commit death of him and thereafter committed murder and also

hide his corpus to disappear the evidence of the aforesaid crime.

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the appellant''s

conviction for the offence punishable under sections 364(A), 302,

201 of the IPC is affirmed. So far sentence is concerned, it is also

found to be in accordance with the law. Hence the order with

regard to sentence is also affirmed and appellant''s appeal is dismissed.