Ram Baran Shukla vs Ram Vilas & Ors.

(1) Since both the appeals are connected and arise out of the common judgment dated dated 24/09/2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.179/2006, they are decided by the present common judgment.

(2) The appellants have preferred the present appeals against the aforesaid judgment, being aggrieved with their conviction and sentence, whereby each of the appellants has been convicted of offence under Sections 302 / 34 and 323 / 34 of IPC (two count charges) and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and three months'' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- on each count charge of Section 323 / 34 of IPC respectively.

(3) Prosecution''s case, in short, is that on 09/02/2006 at about 07:00 pm in the evening the appellants along-with other persons went in front of the house of Ramgopal in village Eentkhedi and surrounded the deceased Laxmi Narayan. The appellant Rajmal gave a blow of farsi on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and injury was caused. Thereafter, the appellant Biram assaulted on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan for two times causing injuries. On his shouting, the witnesses Bhooli Bai (PW2), Sugan Bai (PW4) and Munshilal (PW5) went to the spot and tried to save the deceased Laxmi Narayan. The appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya gave a blow of back of farsi on the neck of the witness Munshilal (PW5) causing injuries to him.The accused Ramdayal gave a blow of luhangi to Sugan Bai (PW4) and Bhooli Bai (PW2) was also beaten by the appellants. The deceased Laxmi Narayan who had covered his head by a yellow towel sustained injuries on his head and by three blows of farsi, towel was also cut and stained with blood. The witnesses Ramgopal (PW10) and Indra Bai (PW3) have also seen the incident. Bhooli Bai (PW2) thereafter lodged the FIR Ex.P7 at about 09:00 pm. The injured persons were sent to the hospital for their examination and treatment. Dr.GK Rathi (PW1) had examined the deceased Laxmi Narayan, injured Sugan Bai and Munshilal and gave his reports Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6 respectively. He found four injuries to the deceased Laxmi Narayan, out of them one wound was incised wound caused on the left side of head whereas Sugan Bai and Munshilal have sustained simple injuries, caused by hard and blunt object. The deceased Laxmi Narayan was also referred for X-ray examination. Dr. Sitaram Raghuvanshi (PW7) examined the deceased Laxmi Narayan radio-logically and gave a report Ex.P12. He found a fracture of left parietal bone on him. However, the deceased Laxmi Narayan succumbed to the injuries. His dead body was sent for postmortem.

(4) Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW18) performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and gave a report Ex.P32. According to him, he found three injuries on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and those were stitched wounds. On opening of body, left parietal bone was found fractured and meninges were congested. On the left portion of the head clotted blood was found. According to Dr. Bhagat, the deceased died due to head injuries. ASI Vishnu Prasad went to the spot and prepared a spot map Ex.P8. He also recovered a bloodstained towel from the complainant Bhooli Bai which was of the deceased Laxmi Narayan. SHO Mr. SS Tomar (PW8) arrested the appellants and recovered one farsi each from the appellants Rajmal and Biram on the information given by them and seizure memos Ex.P14 and Ex.P17 respectively were prepared. One farsi was also recovered from the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya by a seizure memo Ex.P20. Various articles received from the hospital, taken from the spot and recovered from the appellants, were sent for Forensic Science Analysis by a letter Ex.P22. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Chachoda who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately, it was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda (District Guna).

(5) The appellants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea but they have denied the charges with the pretext that they were falsely implicated in the matter. However, in defence, Dheeraj Singh (DW1), Parvat Singh (DW2) and Sheela Bai (DW3) were examined to show that there was no enmity between the parties relating to Sheela Bai and the appellants were falsely implicated in the matter.

(6) The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

(7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

(8) First of all, it is to be considered as to whether death of

the deceased was homicidal in nature or not ? In this connection, the evidence given by Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW18) may be considered, who performed postmortem on the body of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and gave his report Ex.P32. He found following injuries to the deceased:-

"(1) Already stitched wound over left parietal region of head 5 cm long. (2) Already stitched wound over vertex of head, U-shaped 9 cm long. (3) Already stitched wound over left occipital region 2 cm long." On opening of the body, he found that left parietal bone of the deceased was broken, meninges were congested and blood clots were found on the left side of brain and skull. According to Dr. Bhagat, the deceased Laxmi Narayan died due to head injury and the injury found to the deceased was sufficient to cause his death. He gave his opinion that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The opinion given by Dr. Bhagat cannot be discarded. Such injuries could not be caused in any accident and those could not be self-inflicted and, therefore, death of the deceased Laxmi Narayan was neither accidental nor suicidal, hence, it was homicidal in nature.

(9) Though Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW18) and his companions have performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Laxmi Narayan but various wounds of the deceased Laxmi Narayan were repaired by the treating doctor, Dr.CD Sharma (PW16) and, therefore, for considering the nature of the injuries, MLC report Ex.P2 may be considered as proved by Dr.GK Rathi (PW1). According to him, two lacerated wounds were found on both sides of the head and one incised wound was found on the left side of the head and some abrasions were found on the right knee. Such position of wounds should be considered when evidence of eye-witnesses shall be considered.

(10) The witnesses Bhooli Bai (PW2), Indra Bai (PW2), Sugan Bai (PW4), Munshilal (PW5) and Prem Bai (PW6) were

examined as eye-witnesses, out of them Bhooli Bai, Sugan Bai and Munshilal were the injured eye-witnesses whereas Bhooli Bai lodged the FIR Ex.P7. The FIR was lodged within two hours whereas the police station Kumbhraj was 12 kilometers away from the village Eentkhedi where the incident took place. These witnesses have stated that at about 07:00 pm the appellants along-with one accused Ramdayal came to the spot. They were armed with farsis. The accused Ramdayal had a luhangi. The deceased Laxmi Narayan who was standing near the house of Ramgopal, was the target of the appellants. Initially, the appellant Rajmal gave a blow of farsi on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and thereafter, the appellant Biram gave two blows of farsi on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan. The towel which was on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan was cut due to such blows. On hearing the shouts of the deceased Laxmi Narayan, Bhooli Bai, Sugan Bai and Munshilal tried to save him and the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya gave a blow of back of farsi on the neck of the victim Munshilal (PW5). The victim Sugan Bai (PW4) had also sustained injuries due to assault caused by the appellants. However, the witnesses Indra Bai (PW2) and Ramgopal (PW10) have also tried to save the deceased Laxmi Narayan and thereafter, the appellants went away.

(11) The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is contradiction between the statements of these witnesses that whether various blows were given to the deceased Laxmi Narayan when he fell down on the ground or those blows were given when he was standing. However, such minute details cannot be accepted from the witnesses. There is consistency in the evidence of all the witnesses about the assault done by the appellants. It is clear that only one blow was given by the appellant Rajmal on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan whereas two blows were given by the appellant Biram. If such blows were considered with MLC report Ex.P2 proved by Dr. GK Rathi (PW1) then the blows given by appellant Biram have caused lacerated wounds on right side as well as left side of the head and the blow given by

appellant Rajmal had caused an incised wound on left side of the head of the deceased. There is no allegation that the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya had tried to assault the deceased by any weapon.

(12) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a material contradiction between the evidence of the witnesses that a particular assailant had assaulted the deceased Laxmi Narayan from his backside or from his right side or left side but as discussed above, such minor details are not expected from the witnesses who did not expect of such an incident and, therefore, it is possible that they could not observe a detailed account of such factual position.

(13) The learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that the appellants were implicated on the basis of suspicion because the complainant Bhooli Bai was of the view that since one Sheela Bai, daughter of the deceased Laxmi Narayan was abducted by one Tejal Singh and, therefore, it was thought that the appellants would have caused assault on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan. In this connection, Sheela Bai (DW3) was examined to show that her father Laxmi Narayan declared her engagement with one Kanhaiyalal of Gujjarkhedi from whom he took a sum of Rs.20,000/- in advance. Thereafter, her father Laxmi Narayan had broken that engagement and a fresh engagement was done with Gajraj Bheel after taking a sum of Rs.30,000/- and thereafter, Sheela Bai went to Tejal Singh on her own and after getting her marriage, she is residing with Tejal Singh since long. She suspected that since the deceased Laxmi Narayan did not fulfill the settlement of marriage done with Gajraj Bheel, various Bheels would have killed her father Laxmi Narayan. However, the incident took place at about 05:00 pm and at that time, sufficient sunlight was available and there is no possibility that the eye-witnesses could not see the actual culprits and, therefore, they suspected upon the appellants. The enmity is a double-edged weapon. Due to enmity, a person can kill his enemy and due to that enmity, the

enemies can be falsely implicated. It is also settled view of the Apex Court that if enmity or motive is not proved then it may make no difference while convicting the accused persons. In the present case, let it be presumed that there was no enmity between the appellants and the deceased Laxmi Narayan and the result of this presumption would be that no motive of the appellants is proved. The Apex Court in the case of '''' Atley vs. State of Uttar Pradesh '''' [AIR 1955 SC 807] has opined that if motive is proved then it would be an additional piece of circumstance in the chain of circumstantial evidence but if it is not proved then it would not be a hurdle in convicting the accused for the offence of murder. The complainant Bhooli Bai, in the present case, had lodged the FIR Ex.P7 within two hours of the incident and ASI Vishnu Prasad had sent the various victims for their medico-legal examination. According to the reports given by Dr.GK Rathi (PW1), he started the examination of various injured at about 09:40 pm. Hence, when the investigating officer started investigation soon after lodging the FIR and if compliance under Section 157 of CrPC is not proved then still it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged with delay or it was lodged ante-timed. In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of '''' State of UP vs. Gokaran and Others '''' [AIR 1985 SC 131] may be referred.

(14) The FIR Ex.P7 was lodged within two hours of the incident whereas the spot was 12 kilometers away from the Police Station and the complainant Bhooli Bai who was a woman, had to arrange for transportation etc. so that the deceased Laxmi Narayan whose condition was not good, could be taken to the Police Station and the Hospital. Hence, the FIR was lodged within a reasonable period which confirms the evidence given by these eye-witnesses. Also, MLC report Ex.P2 and postmortem report Ex.P32 proved by Dr. GK Rathi (PW1) and Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW18) respectively confirm the version of the eye-witnesses. Various wounds were found on the head of the deceased as described by the eye-witnesses and no injury was found to the deceased Laxmi Narayan

caused by the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya. Hence, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is believable and it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant Rajmal gave a blow of farsi on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan causing an incised wound on the left side of the head below which left parietal bone was found broken. Similarly, the appellant gave two blows of farsi causing two lacerated wounds on left and right side of the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan, however, no fracture etc. was found on the right side of the head. The learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that it is alleged against the appellant Biram that he assaulted with a farsi on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan but no incised wound was found due to that impact. However, since the deceased Laxmi Narayan had a yellow towel on his head then it is possible that sharp edge of farsi could not make its impact of sharp edge on the skin or it is possible that farsi of the appellant Biram was not so sharp and, therefore, lacerated wound could be caused. A similarity is found on the nature of the wounds caused by the appellant Biram. Size of such wounds was lengthy and wound no.1 was 1 cm deep. If it was caused by any hard and blunt object like luhangi or lathi, then the wound could not be 1 cm deep. Hence, wound No.1 clearly indicates that the wound was caused by a sharp cutting weapon though it was not finely sharp. Hence, the Injury No.1 clearly indicates that it could be caused by a farsi wherein edge of farsi was not so sharp. Under these circumstances, the medical evidence completely supports the version of eye- witnesses and it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant Rajmal gave a blow of farsi on the left side of head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan whereas the appellant Biram gave two blows of farsi on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan though farsi was not so sharp. It is also indicated that the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya did not give any blow to the deceased Laxmi Narayan.

(15) The learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that the incident took place after sunset and it was dark in the night. Therefore, the eye-witnesses could not see

the incident in the night. However, no such suggestion has been given to the eye-witnesses that they could not see the incident due to dark in the night. However, the witnesses Sugan Bai (PW4) has stated in para 16 of her cross- examination that on that day the moon was visible since evening and, therefore, if the incident took place not exactly at 5:00 then still the incident could be seen by the witnesses in the moonlight and, therefore, on the basis of such factual position, the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded.

(16) The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the appellants Rajmal and Biram had no reason to kill the deceased Laxmi Narayan though it is alleged that they suddenly attacked upon him. However, it is proved by all the eye-witnesses that they went to the spot after hearing the shouts of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and what was the quarrel took place between the appellants and the deceased Laxmi Narayan before arrival of the witnesses is not established on the record. Hence, it is submitted that appellant Rajmal or appellant Biram was not at all interested to cause death of the deceased Laxmi Narayan. It would be apparent that the appellant Rajmal gave a single blow on the left side of the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan and he did not repeat the assault. Therefore, it would be apparent that he assaulted on the vital part of the body of the deceased Laxmi Narayan but avoided the repetition whereas the appellant Biram gave two blows thereafter. Though the appellant Biram gave two blows on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan but there was a fracture of left parietal bone whereas no fracture was found on the right side of the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan which indicates that the blows given by the appellant Biram were not in sufficient force and, therefore, it cannot be said positively that due to whose blows brain haemorrhage was caused and left parietal bone was damaged. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said beyond doubt that the appellant Biram was interested to kill the deceased Laxmi Narayan.

(17) In this connection, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Sasi alias Chalil Sasi vs. State of Kerala'''' [(2000)10 SCC 55] may be referred in which it is held that when the accused had no intention to kill the deceased and he gave a single blow on the head of the deceased whereas others have also assaulted the deceased, case of the accused shall fall within the purview of Section 304 (Part II) of IPC. That the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court is applicable to the appellant Rajmal. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant Rajmal for the offence under Section 302 of IPC whereas he was to be convicted under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC.

(18) It is apparent that the appellant Biram gave two blows on the head of the deceased Laxmi Narayan but it is not confirmed that both the blows were fatal. Where it is accepted that the appellant Biram was not intended to kill the deceased Laxmi Narayan but he gave two blows on the head of the deceased which was vital part of the body of the deceased and therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of " Lachman Singh vs. State of Haryana '''' [2006 CrLJ 4041(SC)], case of the appellant Biram shall fall within the purview of Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC.

(19) Though the charges of Section 34 of IPC were framed against both the appellants but their act appears to be individual and, therefore, the appellant Rajmal shall not be convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC for the death of the deceased Laxmi Narayan on equivalent footing of the appellant Biram. It is true that all the appellants and one absconding accused Ramdayal have collected in front of the house of Ramgopal and those were armed but, since the previous story as to how the quarrel started is not on record, it cannot be said that they had a common intention to kill the deceased Laxmi Narayan. If they had no intention to kill the deceased Laxmi Narayan, their common intention cannot be presumed for their offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Similarly, when the appellant Bhoora Lal alias

Bhuriya did not touch the deceased Laxmi Narayan his intention cannot be presumed with the co-accused Rajmal or Biram. Hence, he cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC or any other lower offence of similar nature either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(20) So far as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, it would be apparent that the witnesses Sugan Bai (PW4) and Munshilal (PW5) were found injured. According to the eye-witnesses, the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya gave a blow of back of his farsi upon Munshilal. Dr. GK Rathi (PW1) while recording the MLC report Ex.P6 found that Munshilal sustained a contused wound on the back of neck and an abrasion on left shoulder. The witness Munshilal did not explain as to how he sustained that abrasion on his shoulder. Similarly, Sugan Bai had stated that she sustained the injuries due to assault done by the absconding accused Ramdayal. It is not alleged against any of the appellants that they assaulted the injured Sugan Bai and, therefore, their common intention cannot be presumed with the accused Ramdayal. Hence, the appellants could not be convicted of offence under Section 323 of IPC for the injured Sugan Bai under Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting all these appellants for aforesaid offence. Similarly, it is not alleged against the appellants Rajmal and Biram that they assaulted the victim Munshilal and, therefore, their common intention cannot be presumed with the co- accused Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya who assaulted the injured witness Munshilal (PW5).The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants Rajmal and Biram for the offence under Section 323 with the help of Section 34 of IPC for the victim Munshilal (PW5).

(21) So far as sentence is concerned, the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya who is to be convicted for a single charge of Section 323 of IPC, has remained in custody for a longer

period and it would be sufficient sentence for him. Hence, his sentence should be recorded for the period in which he remained in custody. The appellant Biram is convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and he has remained in custody since 22/03/2006 i.e. for more than eleven years. Generally, in the case of Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC, ten years'' sentence was found to be sufficient by the Apex Court in various cases and, therefore, it would be appropriate to sentence the appellant Biram with a jail sentence for a period for which he remained in custody. The appellant Rajmal remained in custody since 15/03/2006 upto 23/03/2011 i.e. for five years. His offence falls within the purview of Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and, therefore, it would be also appropriate to impose a jail sentence to the appellant Rajmal for the period in which he has remained in custody during trial and appeal.

(22) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants can be partly allowed. The appeal of the appellant Bhoora Lal alias Bhuriya is hereby allowed that his conviction as well as sentence of various offences are hereby set aside except the single charge of Section 323 of IPC and he is acquitted from remaining charges. However, he is sentenced for the offence under Section 323 of IPC for the period of jail sentence in which he has remained in custody during trial but maximum of three months. The fine of Rs.250/- is imposed for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The appeal filed by the appellant Rajmal is hereby partly allowed. His conviction as well as sentence for the offence under Section 302 or 323 of IPC with the help of Section 34 of IPC are hereby set aside. However, he is convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced with a jail sentence for the period for which he has remained in custody during trial and appeal. Similarly, the appeal filed by the appellant Biram is hereby partly accepted. His conviction as well as sentence for the offences under Sections 302 / 34 and 323 / 34 of IPC are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the aforesaid charges but under the charge of Section 302 of IPC

he is convicted of offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and sentenced with a jail sentence for the period in which he has remained in custody during trial and appeal.

(23) The appellant Biram is in jail and, therefore, the Registry is directed to issue a super-session warrant so that he may be released without any delay. The remaining appellants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and, therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

(24) A copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below along-with its record for information and compliance, if any.