Jalim S/o Heera Kushwah vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved

by the judgment dated 8.11.2005 passed by the 10 t h

Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Bhopal in S.T.No. 235/04 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of an

offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and has

been sentenced to life imprisonment, for life with fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further R.I. for

one year. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has been

found guilty of offence punishable under section 302 of the

IPC on both counts in as much as he has been found guilty of

committing the double murder of Radhiya Bai and Jaswant

Singh.

The prosecution case in brief is that Man Singh PW-10

gave an intimation at police station Sukhi Sevaniya,

Bhopal to the effect that while he was travelling on the

road at about 11.30.AM, he saw Raghubir who was

travelling in a scooter, ahead of him, hit Radhiya Bai

from behind with the scooter while she was walking on

the road and thereafter take out an axe and deliver

several blows on her head and neck with the axe. Man

Singh PW-10 further informed the police that appellant

Raghubir thereafter ran to the adjoining field where the

other deceased Jawant Singh was working and assaulted

him also by delivering several blows with the axe on his back and neck and thereafter ran away from the spot.

Man Singh PW-10 also informed the police that the

incident was also seen by Gulab Singh PW-9 and Ram

Charan PW-5 but Ram Charan, who is the father of

deceased Raghubir, was prevented from intervening by

Santosh who was also working in the field. On receiving

the aforesaid information, the police recorded a Dehati

Nalsi Ex.P/19 and thereafter the criminal law was set in

motion.

The trial Court on the basis of the statements of three eye

witnesses; namely Gulab Singh PW-9, Ram Charan PW-5 and

Man Singh PW-10 as well as the fact of recovery of the

offending weapon i.e. the axe that was used in the commission

of the offence from the accused appellant vide Ex.P/32, which

has been proved by the Investigating Officer Usha Tiwari

PW-14, has recorded a finding of conviction against the

appellant on two counts for having committed the murder of

both Radhiya Bai and Jaswant Singh.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits

that the trial Court has erred in recording a finding of

conviction on the basis of the statement of Man Singh PW-10 as Man Singh in his statement has admitted the

fact that he harboured animosity against the appellant on

account of the fact that the appellant''s father had

deposed against him in a criminal case on the basis of

which he had been convicted and was on bail.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the

aforesaid admission made by Man Singh PW-10 it is clear that

he was an interested witness and therefore, the Court below could not have and should not have relied upon such a

interested witness. The learned counsel for the appellant

further states that as per the statement of Man Singh PW-10 it

is also clear that he saw the incident from a distance of more

than 150-200 meters and in such circumstances the possibility

of the fact that he did not actually see the incident cannot be

ruled out. In support of his submission the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the

Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raju alias Bal

chandran and others Vs. State of Tamil Naidu (2012) 12

SCC 701.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is also

clear from a perusal of the statement of Ram Charan PW-5, who is the father of the deceased Jaswant and brother of

deceased Radhiya Bai that he has stated that he was thrown

down by Santosh who thereafter sat on him to prevent him

from intervening and protecting his son, and in such

circumstances, the possibility of the fact that Ram Charan

PW-5 had actually not seen the incident cannot be ruled out

and has not been considered and taken into account by the

trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that

in such circumstances, the finding recorded by the trial Court

is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length

and having perused the statement of Ram Charan PW-5 Gulab

Singh,PW-9 and Man Singh PW-10 who are the three eye

witnesses to the incident, it is clear that all three are

absolutely consistent in material particulars and have clearly

stated the fact that the appellant initially assaulted Radhiya Bai and thereafter Jaswant Singh with an axe and delivered

several blows on vital parts like the neck and the head. From a

perusal of the statement of Dr. Arneet Arora PW-13 it is also

clear that the deceased Radhiya Bai sustained18 injuries with

a sharp edged weapon and Jaswant Singh also received10

injuries with a sharp edged weapon and that these injuries were on vital parts like the neck and the head and that both of

them succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon their person.

From the statement of Usha Tiwari Investigating Officer PW-14

it is established that the offending weapon i.e. the axe was

recovered from the possession of the appellant on his

directions vide Ex P/32.

From the aforesaid facts which have been properly

appreciated and considered by the trial court, it is

apparent that the commission of the offence by the

appellant is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt

and the trial Court has rightly analyzed and considered

the statements of the eye-witnesses and the other facts to

record a finding of guilt against the appellant.

It is also observed that though Man Singh PW-10 has

admitted in his cross examination the fact that he was convicted on the statement of the appellant''s father.

However, it is observed that the trial Court has not based

its finding or conclusion only on the statement of Man

Singh PW-10 but has also taken into consideration and

accepted the statements of the other two-eye witnesses

Ram Charan PW-5 and Gulab Singh PW-9 and that the statement of Man Singh PW-10 is absolutely consistent

with the statement of Ram Charan PW-5 and Gulab Singh

PW-9 and in such circumstances, we find no fault with the

fact that inspite of the admission made by Man Singh

PW-10 in his statement, the trial court has accepted and

considered the same for holding the appellant guilty of

committing the two murders.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of the

Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raju alias (Surpa)

has no applicability as the facts of the case before the

Supreme Court were totally different from the facts that are

existing in the present case.

In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under

section 302 of the IPC on both counts of having committed the murder of Radhiya Bai and Jaswant Singh is affirmed,

confirmed and upheld and the life sentence imposed upon the

appellant by the trial Court is also confirmed.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellant

is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant, who

is in jail, shall remain incarcerated to undergo the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon him. The appeal is

accordingly dismissed.