Ram Singh @ Ramu vs State of M.P.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

Convicted accused Ram Singh @ Ramu has preferred this appeal against the judgment and sentence dated 3rd April, 1992 passed by Sessions Judge, Sconi in Sessions Trial No. 129/91 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC

Facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass, in brief the case of prosecution is that in the Village of Dangitola (Peeparwani) there is a field of Chittor Singh, near this field, at 12 in the noon the appellant Ram Singh @ Ramu was beating the deceased by lathi, at that time, Chittor Singh arrived there for warding off his cows, upon seeing that appellant is beating the deceased Chandulal, he asked not to beat and also tried to intervene, whereupon appellant pushed Chittor Singh and also gave threat to kill. The appellant gave repeated blows of lathi to Chandulal till he fell down. Chittor Singh informed the incident to Khuman Singh (P.W, 1) who is the son of the deceased Chandulal, thereafter Khuman Singh and his mother rushed to the spot and Chittor Singh came thereafter. After some time, the inhabitants of village also arrived on the spot, they found umpteen injuries on the body of Chandulal who was found to be dead. Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) lodged First Information Report at Police Station, Kurai narrating the incident seen by Chittor Singh. During the investigation, a lathi by which the deceased was beaten was recovered at the instance of accused and which was seized vide Ex.P-5.

The dead-body of Chandulal was sent for post-mortem and Dr. S.S. Nafde (P.W. 7) conducted the post-mortem. The post-mortem report is Ex. P-7 in which the doctor found multiple fractures of third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh rib and many other external injuries as mentioned in the report. The doctor further noticed that whole back of deceased was blackish red.

According to the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased over back resulting into several fractures of the ribs causing injuries to lungs. The death was homicidal in nature. The police after investigation filed challan and after committal the learned Trial Court framed charge punishable u/s 302, IPC against the appellant which he denied.

The prosecution thereafter examined as many as nine witnesses. Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) is the author of First Information Report which is Ex. P-l. It be seen that incident is of 12 noon and FIR was lodged on the same day at 16.30 hours, meaning thereby it was lodged within a short duration of four and half hours. The distance of police station from the place of incident is 25 kms.

The learned Trial Court after marshalling the entire evidence and other material placed on record found that prosecution succeeded in proving its case and consequently by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC and passed the sentence of life imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and sentence of Trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Ku. H.L. Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant, raised following points:--

(i) Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) who lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-l) being the son of deceased and Chittor Singh (P.W. 2) who is an eye-witness and also related to the deceased are highly interested witnesses;

(ii) there was enmity between the deceased and appellant. For demonstrating this fact she had invited our attention to para 3 of Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) in which it has been stated by this witness that on account of taking water from a pond there was dispute between him and deceased. Similarly Deena (P. W. 3) who is the Kotwar of the village has said that three years earlier to the incident, there was a dispute between the deceased and accused Ram Singh;

(iii) third submission made by the learned Counsel is that it has come in the evidence that eye-witness Chittor Singh (P.W. 2) was pushed by the accused but he did not sustain any injury, therefore, his evidence should be dis-believed. According to the learned Counsel the prosecution has failed to prove its case and therefore, appellant should be acquitted;

(iv) it has also been argued by learned Counsel that the prosecution has examined only Chittor Singh (P.W. 2) as an eyewitness and no other witness has been examined though it is the case of prosecution that incident had occurred in the afternoon near the field of Chittor Singh (P.W, 2). She had supported her submission by placing reliance upon the case of Jagdish Prasad and Ors. v. Slate of M.P. 1995 SCC (Cr.) 160;

(v) lastly it has been argued that no case is made out u/s 302, IPC and at the most appellant could be convicted under Part II of Section 304 of IPC. In this respect she has relied upon the case of Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1998 SCC (Cr.) 1549.

Shri S.K. Rai, learned Panel Lawyer supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge and contended that there is no infirmity in the judgment and no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and after perusing the record of the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Before appreciating the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to mention certain important facts and the evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution has examined Chittor Singh (P.W. 2) as an eye-witness. The case of the prosecution is that when this witness went to ward off his cows, he saw that appellant was beating the deceased by lathi, when he tried to intervene he was threatened by the appellant, it was also said by him that today he will kill the deceased, further it has been stated by this witness that appellant has beaten the deceased Chan-dulal on the head, face, back and on the thigh region. Thereafter he went to inform Khuman (P.W. 1), the son of deceased at his house and after informing him this witness went to inform the inhabitants of the village and the villagers arrived on the spot. In the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that when he arrived for warding off his cows he saw appellant beating the deceased. In para 9 he has stated that firstly he saw the incident from a distance of near about 40 ft., upon seeing the incident he cried, however when he saw that nobody was there, he himself went to the spot at that time appellant was assaulting by a lathi having four inches diameter. It has also been stated by this witness that appellant was holding the lathi by both the hands. He asked not to give further blows, upon this appellant said he should not intervene otherwise he will also be killed.

Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) who is the author of First Information Report (Ex. P-1) has stated that on the date of incident at about 12 in the noon Chittor Singh came and informed him that appellant has caused injuries by lathi to his father Chandulal, consequently he has died. He immediately went on the spot along with his mother and found that his father sustained umpteen injuries and he was dead.

Another witness Shyamlal (P.W. 4) has been examined by the prosecution. He is the resident of the same village. He has stated that on the date of incident at 12.30 in the noon when he was inside his house, Guman Singh (another son of deceased) came weeping and staled that appellant has killed his father. He further asked this witness to accompany him to the place of occurrence. Thereafter this witness along with Dr. Sharma and one Sar-panch went to the spot on a motor-cycle and found that Chandulal was dead.

There is yet another witness Kamal Kishore (P.W. 6) who is also the resident of same village and has supported the version of the witness Shyamlal (P.W. 4), he has also proved the recovery of lathi at the instance of the appellant vide memorandum Ex. P-5.

Dr. S.S. Nafde has been examined as P.W. 7 and this witness has performed the post-mortem and noticed the multiple injuries. In cross-examination the doctor has stated that the injuries could be sustained by lathi article A which was sent to him along with query. The doctor found that the whole back of the deceased was blackish red colour.

Now we shall consider the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first contention is that Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) is the son of the deceased and Chittor Singh (P.W, 2) is also related to the deceased, therefore their testimony should be dis-believed. The submission is devoid of any force. The position is well settled that evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased. Normally close relations of the deceased are not likely to falsely implicate a person in the incident leading to the death of the relation unless there are very strong and cogent reasons to accept such criticism. See State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman (2001) 1 SCC 337; Hukam Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, and Munshi Prasad and Others Vs. State of Bihar, . After scrutinising the testimony of P.W. 2 consciously we find there is nothing in his statement so as to dis-believe him. On the other hand whatever has been stated by him is an outcome of his natural conduct. A person like Chittor Singh (P.W. 2) upon seeing that another person like accused is beating by lathi to a victim firstly will ask not to beat and further upon being threatened by the accused will run away from the spot and will inform the family members of the victim and will also narrate the incident to other persons, therefore, it cannot be said that testimony of this witness is not trustworthy. Learned Counsel for the appellant by placing reliance upon the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra) has tried to demonstrate that testimony of single witness cannot be relied upon. u/s 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witness shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact, that being the position this argument of learned Counsel for the appellant has no merit. Moreover, the case which is being relied by her is distinguishable on the facts. In that case itself, in para 8 it has been held by Their Lordships as under:--

"As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated provided the testimony of that single witness is found out entirely reliable. In that case, there will be no legal impediment for recording a conviction. But if the evidence is open to doubt or suspicion, the Court will require sufficient corroboration."

After going through the testimony of eye-witness Chittor Singh, we could not find any material to dis-believe him. In this view of the matter, the case relied upon by the learned Counsel is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that deceased and appellant were not having cordial relation between them and there was a dispute regarding taking the water from the pond. This fact has been admitted by Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) in para 3 and Deena (P.W. 3) in para 5 of their testimony. Merely because there was some dispute regarding taking of water from the pond, could hardly be a ground to implicate the appellant falsely.

The next submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that when Chittor Singh tried to intervene, appellant gave threat to kill and also pushed him, consequently he fell down but as he did not sustain any injury, he should be dis-believed. This argument at the first glance appears to be attractive but on deeper scrutiny is devoid of any force. In para 19 this witness has stated that appellant only pushed him, nowhere he has stated that he fell down. Further it is not necessary that whenever a person falls he is bound to sustain some injuries. Therefore, this contention also has no force.

Lastly it has been contended that no case is made out for the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC, and the case of prosecution comes under the purview of Part II of Section 304 of the IPC, reliance has been placed on Madanlal''s case (supra). After giving anxious consideration to this submission, we are of the opinion that this case is not applicable in the present facts and circumstance. In the post-mortem report Ex. P-7, Dr. Nafde has found multiple contusions (Brownish Black in colour) over left and right side of face, multiple abrasions over the forehead, contusion on right and left ear and back of the ear, multiple bruises all over the back and left buttock. Eye-witness Chittor Singh (P. W. 2) has stated in para 9 that appellant was giving lathi blow by using both the hands and lathi was having 4 inch diameter. Appellant was also saying that he will kill Chandulal. The above facts do not leave any room for doubt that appellant while dealing repeated blows by means of a heavy lathi (4" diameter) by using both his hands on the deceased resulting in multiple fractures of ribs leading to his instantaneous death itself, had intended to cause his death. His above act therefore would amount to the offence of murder and would be punishable u/s 302, IPC only.

In this view of the matter after giving anxious consideration to the entire material on record and the statement of the witnesses, we find that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt and the judgment and conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge does not contain any infirmity. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the judgment and sentence of conviction passed by learned Trial Court is maintained.