Omprakash vs The State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 29/04/2005 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial

No.345/2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Sita Bai and sentenced him to

undergo R.I. for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default further imprisonment of 6 months.

The facts giving rising to this appeal are that the appellant was working as a labourer in the agricultural field of deceased Sita Bai. Near about

one year before the incident, he was discontinued and he was insisting to be taken back on the work, but 8 days before the incident the deceased

refused to take back him on work on account of aforesaid reason, the appellant was in anger and on 06/10/2004 near about 6.30 am, the

appellant came towards the house of the deceased and assaulted deceased Sita Bai with the knife while she was coming from the house to throw

garbage. On hearing the cries of the deceased, brother of the deceased''s husband Laxman Singh (PW-2) rushed toward the place of incident and

saw the appellant assaulting deceased Sita Bai with the knife and also found several injuries on the person of Sita Bai. Chandan Singh (PW-3)

husband of the deceased, and Narendra (PW-4) son of the deceased also rused to the place of incident and saw the appellant running away with

the knife and several injuries and bleeding on the person of Sita Bai and Sita Bai in injured condition was shifted to the hospital where during the

treatment near about 11.50 pm she was died. Laxman Singh (PW-2) lodged the Dehati Nalishi of the incident Ex.P-1 before the death of the

deceased. Therefore earlier offence under section 307 of IPC was registered and after death of the deceased offence under section 302 of IPC

was registered as per FIR Ex.P-10 of Crime No. 228/2004 at the Police Station Kajuri Sadak, District Bhopal.

During the investigation, the appellant was arrested on 09/10/2004 and on the instance of the appellant, blood stained knife and clothes were

recovered. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed under section 302 of IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal,

who committed the case to the Session Judge, Bhopal and after receiving the case on transfer, the 7th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal tried the

case.

During trial against the appellant charge for the offence punishable under sections 302 of IPC was framed. He abjured his guilt and claimed to

be tried. His defence is that he has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion and in his defence no evidence has been adduced.

The learned trial court has recorded its finding of conviction mainly on the basis of the statement of eye witness Laxman Singh (PW-2)

considering his statement trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses Chandan Singh (PW-3), Narendra (PW-4) and independent witnesses

Devi Singh (PW-12) and Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) to whom the name of the appellant as an assailant was disclosed after the incident and Dehati

Nalishi Ex.P-1 and also medical evidence.

The finding of the learned trial court has been assailed on the ground that the prosecution story has not been proved by any independent and

impartial witness. All the relevant witnesses have disclosed the different place of the incident and from the place where they have claimed to see the

incident, they were not able see the place of incident. Therefore their statement that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased can''t be

considered to be reliable and creditable. On the seized articles knife and clothes blood of the deceased has not been found to be proved. In the

circumstance, it can''t be said that prosecution succeeded to bring home the charge against the appellant. Hence, the appeal be allowed and the

appellant be acquitted of the offence.

Learned G.A has supported the findings of the learned trial court and opposed the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant

stating that the findings of the learned trial court are based on the cogent evidence and prayed for rejection of this appeal.

Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in the case nature of death of the deceased,

which was homicidal is not disputed. Apart from it, this fact has been proved by Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW-10), who conducted autopsy on

06/10/2004 as per Ex.P-8. According to Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW-10) following injuries were found on the body of deceased Sita Bai:-

i. Stab wound present on the right side face just anterior ear runs downward medially size 7 cm with 6 stitches in ends are pointed and 5 cm deep

and it cuts all muscles of neck veins muscles are ecchynosed;

ii. Stab wound present 27 cm below right clavicle medial end of size 3 cm with two stitches both end pointed on stitch removal 1 cm wide vertical

3 cm away from away mid line 10 cm deep cut muscles and there is laceration of live of size 2.5 cm direction of wound is posterior and upward.

iii. Stab wound present 27 cm below medial end of left clavicle of size 3.5 cm with 3 stitches 1 cm wide and 3 cm away from mid line muscles are

lacerated runs left to right for a depth of 4 cm;

iv. Stab wound present 32 cm below medial end of left clavicle 5 cm away from mid line of size 2 1/2 cm with 2 stitches vertical and 4 cm deep

backward medially under skin and muscle Muscles are lacerated both ends are pointed. On removing stitch 1 cm wide.

v. Stab wound present 42 cm below medial end of left clavicle 3 cm away from mid line lateral size 2 1/2 cm vertical both ends are pointed 3 cm

deep runs left to right muscles are cut lacerated;

vi. Stab wound present on flavor aspect of arm vertical with 4 stitches 5 cm in length. It is 16 1/2 cm below tip of shoulder all muscles and

structure are cut ecchynosed;

vii. Stab wound present on posterior border of axilla 10 cm below shoulder 2 1/2 cm wide 2 stitches 10 cm deep runs downward medially both

ends are pointed on removing stitch 1 1/2 cm wide muscle deep and also cut VIII rib underneath omentum is ecchymosis small laceration;

He further stated that the cause of death was shock and excessive bleeding on account of multiple stabbed injuries and injuries were anti-mortem,

caused by hard sharp and pointed object and death was taken place within 24 hours and postmortem report is Ex.P-8.

The aforesaid statement of Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (PW-10) has not been challenged during the cross examination. There is nothing on record

to make the statement doubtful or unbelievable. Thus it is held that deceased Sita Bai was died on 06/10/2004 on account of aforesaid injuries

caused to her by other person. Hence nature of death was homicidal.

Now the crucial question is that whether the appellant caused aforesaid injuries to the deceased with the intention to kill her.

Laxman Singh (PW-2) has stated that the deceased was his brother''s wife and they remained in the same house. On 06/10/2004 near about 6

to 7 am, he was standing on the outer door of his house. He heard noises of crying of Sita Bai, then he saw in the garden, the appellant was

assaulting Sita Bai with the knife and when he rushed toward the place of incident and shouted, then the appellant ran away. There were injuries on

the neck and stomach of Sita Bai and also bleeding and at that time his brother Chandan Singh (PW-3), nephew Narendra (PW-4) and Devi

Singh (PW-12) also gathered. Thereafter in the auto of one Bhagwat Singh (PW-1), Sita Bai was taken to the hospital where near about 11 to 12

o''clock Sita Bai was died and near 8 days before the incident when deceased refused to appellant to take back on the work, he threatened the

deceased for dier consequences and he lodged the FIR Ex.P-1 in the hospital.

The statement of Laxman Singh (PW-2) has been corroborated by Chandan Singh (PW-3), Narendra (PW-4), Devi Singh (PW-12) and

Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) in which Chandan Singh (PW-3), Narendra (PW-4), and Devi Singh (PW-12) have stated that after hearing the hue and

cries, they rushed towards the place of incident and saw the appellant running away with knife and laying injured Sita Bai. Bhagwat Singh (PW-1)

has stated that Narendra (PW-4) told him that appellant has assaulted his brother''s wife, therefore from the place of incident he took the deceased

in his auto to hospital. Devi Singh (PW-12) and Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) are independent witnesses. There are nothing on their statement to

consider that they can falsely support the prosecution case. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 has signature of Laxman Singh (PW-2) and on the basis of it,

FIR Ex.P-10 has been recorded by Head Constable, Santosh Gautam (PW-11) in Police Station Kajuri Sadak, District Bhopal.

The learned trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant caused aforesaid injuries to the deceased

with intention to kill her.

On behalf of the appellant, the creditability of the witnesses have been assailed on the ground that Laxman Singh (PW-2), Chandan Singh

(PW-3) and Narendra (PW-4) are close relative of the deceased. Hence they are interested witness and their statement can''t be relied. The

aforesaid contention have no substance. The testimony of any witness can''t be discarded merely on the ground that he is relative of the deceased.

All witnesses are natural witnesses and their presence can''t be doubted. There is no cogent reason for considering that in place of actual culprit,

they can implicate appellant falsely. Apart from it, their testimonies have been supported by independent witnesses Devi Singh (PW-12) and

Bhagwat Singh (PW-1) and statement of Chandan Singh (PW-3) also get support by Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 and testimony of Dr. Neelam

Shrivastava (PW-10). Similarly, the testimony of aforesaid witnesses can''t be discarded or disbelieved merely on the ground that prosecution has

failed to prove the presence of human blood or the blood of the deceased on knife and shirt recovered on the instance of the appellant as absence

of any piece of evidence, having corroborative nature, testimony of eye witness can''t be disbelieved.

The other contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to disclose different places of incident by the prosecution witnesses is

concerned, the same has no substance as they have claimed to see the incident standing from a certain point of place. They have categorically

stated that they rushed towards the place of incident after hearing hues and cries of the deceased from the place of incident, which was garden

situated outside the house of deceased. Therefore, aforesaid contention is immaterial and on the basis of it, it can''t be deemed that the witnesses

were not in a position to see the incident.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that learned trial court has not committed any error in recording the finding of conviction

of the appellant under section 302 of IPC with regard to commission of murder of deceased Sita Bai. Hence the impugned judgment of conviction

and sentence is un-interferable. Hence the finding of the learned trial court is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.

We also express our words of gratitude for the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae.

As appellant is in custody since the date of arrest, he shall suffer the aforesaid sentences in accordance with the law.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court and jail authorities for information and necessary action.