Prem Bhuwan Singh vs The State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.07.2008,

passed by learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Sidhi in

Sessions Trial No. 103/2006, whereby the appellants

have been found guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 148, 302 / 149 of IPC, and have been

sentenced to undergo two years'' R.I. with fine of

Rs.500/- each, and life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.500/-each respectively, with default stipulations.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

27.03.2006 Tarawati (PW.2) who had gone to fill water

at the handpump at around 7 AM in the morning saw

her father-in-law deceased Ramsujan going for work,

when he reached near the handpump, accused

persons,namely, Kamta, Nichua, Rambahor, Chhaviraj

and Kailash surrounded and attacked the deceased

with Tangi and Lathis. On hearing her shouts, Tersi

(PW.1) wife of the deceased, came running and

attempted to save the deceased, but the accused

persons came after her, so she ran away. The accused

persons, then dragged the deceased to the house of

Budhsen and assaulted and killed him. According to

the prosecution, the incident took place on account of

previous enmity between the deceased and the

accused persons on account of the fact that accused

Nichua had run away with the daughter of deceased

Ramsujan who had thereafter filed a report against

the accused Nichua. The report (Ex.P/1), in respect of

the incident, was lodged by Tersi (PW.1) at PS-Rampur

Naikin, on the basis of which criminal law was set in

motion. Gopal Singh (PW.12) Head Constable and

Vikramaditya (PW.11) Constable recovered the injured

Ramsujan from the house of Budhsen in presence of

Sriniwas (PW.3), Ramakant (PW.7) and others, and

sent him to Rampur Naikin Hospital for treatment.

However, enroute the hospital Ramsujan succumbed

to the injuries. Spot map (Ex.P/3) was made and

body of the deceased was then sent for autopsy.

Dr.Sandeep Bhagat (PW.4) who conducted the

postmortem found 17 injuries all over the body of the

deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, death was

caused due to extensive haemorrhage and shock

caused by multiple fracture of the bones. According to

the doctor, all the injuries were antemortam and

homicidal in nature and caused within 12 hours of the

postmortem. The appellants/accused persons were

arrested except accused Nichua who absconded and

the offending weapons were seized on their directions.

As per the FSL report (Ex.P/32) human blood was

found on Tangi and Lathis.

The Trial Court recorded a finding of guilt

against the accused persons and convicted them as

aforementioned, relying on the statements of Tersi

(PW.1) and Tarawati (PW.2), the medical evidence and

FSL report on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

submitted that the present case falls under Section

304 Part II of IPC. Inviting our attention to the

medical evidence and also the weapon used, it is

argued that no deadly weapon has been used by the

appellants. Appellant Nichua though said to have

carried Ballam ,but no injury by Ballam was found on

the body of the deceased . They have further

submitted that as there is no injury on the vital part of

the body of the deceased, the conviction under Section

302 / 149 of IPC in the facts and circumstances of the

case, cannot be sustained. In support of their

submissions, the learned counsel have relied upon the

decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases

of Raja Ram and others vs. State of M.P .(1994) 2

SCC 568, State of Punjab vs. Balkar Singh and

others 1998 SCC (Cri.) 399 and Badal Murmu and

others vs. State of West Bengal (2014) 3 SCC 366.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for

the State had supported the judgment passed by the

trial Court. He has submitted that statements of Tersi

(PW.1) and Tarawati (PW.2) are consistent and stand

corroborated with the medical evidence which shows

that excessive haemorrhage has been caused due to

multiple fracture of the body parts, and have been

rightly relied upon by the trial Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length and meticulously perused the record.

It is an admitted fact that the accused persons

are all related and there exist previous enmity on

account of the fact that accused Nichua had earlier

run away with the daughter of deceased Ramsujan.

It is also evident from the record that body of

deceased Ramsujan was recovered from the house of

Budhsen. Sriniwas (PW.3) and Rajneesh Singh (PW.5)

have proved and established that body of deceased

Ramsujan was recovered from the house of Budhsen

where he was lying unconscious in a pool of blood.

There were injuries all over his body, chest,leg and

hands. He was taken to the hospital , when enroute,

he succumbed to the injuries. It is evident from the

medical report that there were multiple fractures on

all over the body starting from parietal region up to

the fibula and the death occurred due to shock caused

by excessive haemorrhage due to multiple fractures.

Tersi (PW.1) and Tarawati (PW.2) are absolutely

consistent on material particulars and have clearly

stated the fact that Budhsen and Kamta caught hold

the hands of Ramsujan and accused Rambahor,

Nichua, Kailash and Chhaviraj who were armed with

Tangi (axe), Barchhi and Lathis respectively, initially

assaulted Ramsujan at the handpump and then

dragged him to the house of Budhsen and assaulted

him in his courtyard. Both the witnesses have stated

that the incident was witnessed by Ramraj

Vishwakarma and Ramakant Tiwari who came to the

spot after hearing their screams. Sriniwas (PW.3) has

stated that hearing the shouts and commotion, he

came to the spot and saw Chhaviraj, Kailash and

Rambahor assaulting Ramsujan in the courtyard of

Budhsen. He has further stated that Ramsujan was

lying in Budhsen''s courtyard and there was lot of

blood and number of injuries on his body. Despite

their extensive cross-examination, these witnesses

have remained consistent and unshakeable in their

testimony.

From the testimony of Dr.Sandeep Bhagat

(PW.4), it is clear that deceased Ramsujan sustained

seventeen injuries all over his body. There were

multiple fractures in both the legs and hands, four

injuries on the back side, and two bone deep lacerated

wound on frontal and occipital region of the head. It

is also clear from the statements of Tersi (PW.1),

Tarawati (PW.2) and Sriniwas (PW.3) that Ramsujan

succumbed to the injuries inflicted upon his person.

From the statement of R.C.Mishra (PW.13)

Investigating Officer, it is proved and established that

the offending weapon i.e.Tangi (axe), and Lathis were

recovered vide Ex.P/5, P/7, P/9, P/27 and P/28 from

the possession of the appellants on their direction. As

per the FSL report (Ex.P/32), human blood was found

on the axe recovered from Rambahor and Lathis

recovered from Kailash and Chhaviraj.

In the facts and circumstances which have been

properly appreciated and considered by the trial

Court, it is apparent that commission of offence by the

appellants is clearly established beyond reasonable

doubt, and the trial Court has rightly analyzed and

considered the statements of eye-witnesses and other

facts on record in finding the guilt against the

appellants.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, the reliance placed by the appellants on the

decision of Supreme Court in cases of Raja Ram and

others vs. State of M.P .(supra), State of Punjab vs.

Balkar Singh and others (supra) and Badal Murmu

and others vs. State of West Bengal (supra) 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

appellants under Section 302 / 149, 148 IPC on

account of having committed murder of Ramsujan is

affirmed and upheld, and the sentence imposed upon

the appellants by the trial Court is also confirmed.

In view of aforesaid, the appeal filed by the

appellants being meritless is,accordingly, dismissed.

It is informed by learned counsel for the appellants

that appellants no. 4 and 5,namely, Kamta Loniya and

Budhsen Loniya are on bail. Their bail bonds shall

stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender

forthwith to undergo the remaining part of jail

sentence. The appellants who are in jail shall remain

incarcerated to undergo remaining part of sentence

imposed upon them.