Limadiya alias Likharam alias Nimbaram vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against judgment dated 26.12.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur, in

Sessions Trial No.161/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs.1000 and RI for three years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

As per prosecution case, Naansingh lodged a report at police station, Nimola District Burhanpur is that, on 23.4.2006 his son Shantilal had

gone to Banjari Mal Forest but did not return to the house. After searching him, his family members not found him. His decapitated body was

found on 23.4.2006. Head of the Shantilal was found nearby a culvert covered with stones on 24.4.2006. Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P12) was registered

and thereafter FIR (Ex.P10) was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to injuries

caused by sharp edged weapon. After due investigation and the memorandum of the appellant charge sheet has been filed against the appellant

under Section 302 and 201 of IPC.

The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. After considering the entire prosecution evidence, learned trial Court held the appellant guilty

for committing the murder of the deceased-Shantilal. He has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to

life imprisonment knowing the reason to believe that the offence has been committed, causes evidence of the commission of that offence to

disappear with the intention of screening him from the legal punishment.

The above findings and sentence have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds that the learned trial Court has wrongly relied on the

testimony of Nansingh (PW1), Lalla Bai (PW2), Lakkad Singh (PW4) and Aansingh (PW15), which suffers from major contradictions and

omissions. There is no circumstantial evidence available on record against the appellant. On the basis of conjecture and surmises, the appellant has

wrongly been convicted by the learned trial Court, thus the findings of the learned trial Court are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence,

hence deserve to be set aside.

Learned Govt. Advocate has vehemently opposed the submissions of the appellant and contended that the learned trial Court has rightly held

the appellant guilty for committing the aforesaid offences.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The point for consideration is that - whether the appellant can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence available against him ?

It is not in dispute that deceased died due to fatal injuries caused to him. ASI, Vinod Singh Kushwaha (PW17) prepared a lash Panchnam

(Ex.P2) of the deceased. Decapitated body of Shantilal was found at Bajarimal Forest. Nansingh (PW1) father of deceased has deposed that he

saw the decapitated body of his son Shantilal. Peel Singh (PW9) has deposed that head of deceased Shantilal was found near culvert and was

hidden under the stone. Dr. D.K. Patidar (PW16) conducted autopsy of the deceased. He corroborated the above conditions of the dead body

and found about 7 incised wounds from mandible to frontal, parietal and occipital region. The maximum wounds were bone deep. The dead body

was beheaded. A incised wound found all over the neck. All the neck was cut with blood clots. He also found contusion and lacerated wounds

with underline fractures of 4th, 5th and 6th Rib alongwith multiple laceration. Further he found that brain matter was coming out side, from the

incised wound over the frontal parietal region. As per the opinion of Dr. D.K. Patidar (PW16) deceased Shantilal died due to shock because of

failure of cardiac respiratory system and the injuries over the vital parts. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death of

deceased as proved by Dr. D.K. Patidar (PW16) vide his postmortem report (Ex.P11). He also established that deceased Shantilal died within 1

to 3 days from the postmortem, performed by him.

In view of the above medical evidence, we are of the opinion that the deceased was intentionally killed by using sharp cutting object. The culprit

has inflicted multiple blows on the head of the Shantilal. As observed in the case of Public Prosecutor Vs. Mushu Noru Satyanarayan Murthi

[1942 (13) Cr.LJ 145] the act of the appellant comes under the purview of Section 30 (4) of Indian Penal Code.

Nansingh (PW1) father of the deceased, Lalla Bai (PW2) mother of the deceased and Makdhiya (PW7) established that before the incident at

the house of Makdhiya, the appellant beaten Chhagania @ Aansing in consequence thereto the deceased slapped the accused. The aforesaid

testimony is supported by Aansingh (PW15). He deposed that in his presence, the appellant threatened to Shantilal to kill him. Aansingh (PW15)

in his cross-examination has explained that appellant is his brother-in-law, who left his sister because she was suffering from leprosy. On that

ground the appellant had enmity with the deceased which established that the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased.

As per the statements of close relatives of the deceased Nansingh (PW1), Lalla Bai (PW2) and Budhiya (PW3) on the date of incident

deceased Shantilal went to the Forest. His decapitated body and head was found in the forest as stated by Lakkad Singh (PW4) and Daya Ram

(PW5). ASI, Vinod Singh Kushwaha (PW17) recovered blood stained soil, an axe of the deceased on the spot before Ramesh and Rai Singh. He

prepared a seizure memo (Ex.P3). Ramesh and Rai Singh corroborated the above proceeding, thus such recovery is found reliable. ASI, Vinod

Singh Kushwaha (PW17) has also deposed that, since in custody the appellant gave information as shown in the memorandum (Ex.P5) . In front of

witness Fakira and Sursingh he recovered the weapon (an axe) used by him in the incident. Sursingh (PW10) and Fakira (PW11) duly

corroborated the above testimony of Investigating Officer, which duly proves the involvement of appellant with the crime. The appellant also went

with the police in the forest to identify the place of incident as per memorandum Ex.P7. Above testimony of Investigating Officer is also

corroborated by Panch witnesses.

Investigating Officer, Vinod Singh Kushwaha (PW17) sent the seized axe ''Article E'' for query before Dr.K.Patidar inquiry report (Ex.13), he

confirms that the injuries of the deceased can be caused by such weapon. During the crossexamination Dr. K. Patidar admitted that the injuries

No. 1 to 6 of the deceased can be caused due to fallen on any hard and sharp object. This is a possibility only. Because we are of the opinion that

in such position the neck was not totally separated due to such cut injuries otherwise also the neck and decapitated body were found separately.

ASI, Vinod Singh Kushwaha (PW17) has also deposed that blood stained axe was recovered from the appellant. His clothes were also seized

by him. As per seizure memo Ex.P8, all the articles were sent to the FSL, Indore for chemical examination and as per the FSL Report (Ex.P35)

blood stains are found on the soil (Article-A & B), on an axe recovered from the appellant (Article-E) and on Clothes (Article-F&G) human blood

was found. The appellant failed to offer any explanation for such evidence found against him. Therefore, we find that the learned trial Court has

duly appreciated and relied on the aforesaid evidence against the appellant on record and held him guilty for committing murder of deceased

Shantilal. All the circumstantial evidence, complete the chain which proves that it is the accused alone who committed murder of deceased.

After considering all the facts and circumferences, the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that, there is no ground or merit to interfere in

the findings of learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing murder of the deceased under Section

392 of the IPC. The number of injuries, nature of injuries, place of injuries, used weapon and act of the appellant are the facts clearly establish the

intention of the appellant, to cause the death of the deceased then disappeared the evidence of such crime with intention to screening him from the

legal punishment.

In view of the foregoing we find that there is no case to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court. This appeal against the conviction of

the appellant, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance alongwith the record immediately.