Rama vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as ""Cr.P.C"") has been filed being

aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Multai

to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Betul in Sessions Trial No.96/2006 convicting the appellant Rama for the charge of Section

302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as ""I.P.C"") for committing the murder of Gajanand and sentencing him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also convicting him

for the charge of Section 324/34 of the I.P.C for causing the injury to Sushilabai and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months so also convicting him for the charge of Section 25(1)

(a) of the Arms Act for using Gupti in commission of the offence and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

It is not in dispute that Sushilabai is the complainant in this case and the house of her father, namely, Laxman Sahu, is nearby to the house of

accused Rama and Pramod. Complainant Sushilabai is the mother of deceased Gajanand. Savita is the wife of deceased Gajanand. The marriage

of Savita and Gajanand was solemnized at Prabhatpattan. Savita gave birth to a child at Prabhatpattan and when they returned back to their house,

it is seen that in front of the house of Laxman Sahu, the accused persons have blocked the drain due to which the dirty water logged around. On

the date of the incident i.e.15.2.2006 at about 7:30 pm, the complainant Sushilabai asked the accused Rama to open the drain, which was refused

by him. At that time, co-accused Anandrao and Pramod also rushed to the spot. During the altercation, accused Rama assaulted Sushilabai on her

left thigh by means of Gupti. Gajanand came to the scene to rescue her mother Sushilabai. Anandrao and Pramod caught hold the deceased

Gajanand and accused Rama caused injury by means of Gupti on his right waist and chest. During altercation, Sushilabai, Laxman Sahu, Vinod,

Umesh and Durgabai made an attempt to mediate the issue. Gajanand died on the way when he was taken to Multai for treatment by the

complainant party. On the basis of the information of the complainant Sushilabai, the police investigation commenced. The merg intimation was

registered vide Exhibit P/2 and thereafter the first information report was registered by the police vide Exhibit P/1 for the offence under Sections

302, 324, 34 of the I.P.C and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The dead body of Gajanand was sent for postmortem and the seizure of clothes of

Gajanand and other relevant articles were made. The Nakshamauka was prepared vide Exhibit P/5 and at the instance of accused Rama, the

weapon (Gupti) was seized and it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

After completion of the investigation, the Challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Multai, District Betul but as the case

was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed to the Court of Sessions from-where it was received by the Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court) Multai to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, District Betul for trial where the charges of Sections 302/34,

324/34 of the I.P.C and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act were framed against appellant/accused Rama. Co-accused Anandrao was also

convicted by the Trial Court for the charge of Sections 302/34, 324/34 of the I.P.C and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act against which he filed

Criminal Appeal No.2157/2006, which was withdrawn by him.

The appellant/accused Rama has abjured his guilt and taken a defence of false implication. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses

in support of their case but the accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence.

The Trial Court relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and corroborating the same with the medical evidence convicted the

appellant Rama for the charge of Sections 302/34, 324/34 of the I.P.C and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and directed him to undergo the

sentence as hereinabove described.

Learned counsel representing the appellant has strenuously urged that the conviction of appellant is not based on due appreciation of the

evidence brought on record by the prosecution. In the merg intimation (Exhibit P/2), the place of incident has not been specified and the Trial

Court has not considered the said issue in true perspective. There are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the eye-witnesses

pertaining to the time of incident, which is having material bearing to the case at hand. It is contended that the incident took place all of a sudden

without any premeditation in the heat of passion without having any previous enmity, therefore, the conviction of appellant Rama for the charge of

Section 302 of the I.P.C is not proper. In the alternative, it is urged that looking to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the

conviction of appellant for the charge of Section 302 of the I.P.C may be set aside instead he may be convicted for the charge of Section 304

Part-II of the I.P.C and the sentence of more than 11 years already undergone by him would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this

case.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent/State has contended that it is a case wherein soon before the

date of incident, the accused blocked the drain of the house of Laxman Sahu, who is the father of complainant Sushilabai. Deceased Gajanand is

the maternal-grand-son of Laxman Sahu and he was at home at the time of the incident. On account of the said dispute, the accused Rama armed

with Gupti came to the scene and assaulted the complainant Sushilabai. Accused Rama also assaulted the deceased Gajanand by means of Gupti

on the vital part of his body resulting into his death. Looking to the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Sushilabai (PW.1), Durgabai (PW.2),

Vinod (PW.3), Laxman (PW.15) supported by the medical evidence of Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13) the allegations have rightly been found prove by

the Trial Court and the blood stain was also found on the weapon (Gupti), which was used in commission of the offence as apparent from the FSL

report, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant Rama for the charge of Sections 302/34, 324/34 of the

I.P.C and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and directed him to under the sentence as described hereinabove. Learned Government Advocate

contends that the conviction and sentence as directed by the Trial Court do not warrant any interference while infact it is not a case wherein the

conviction of appellant Rama may be reduced from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C, therefore, the alternative prayer as made by

learned counsel for the appellant for converting the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C may also be rejected.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the findings as recorded by the Trial Court so also the testimony

of the complainant Sushilabai (PW.1), it is apparent that when the complainant Sushilabai asked the accused Rama to open the drain of the house

of Laxman Sahu because of which the dirty water logged around, the dispute arose and thereafter the accused Rama caused injuries to Sushilabai

on her left thigh by means of Gupti, which found supported by the medical evidence of Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13). When deceased Gajanand came

to save her mother Sushilabai, the accused Anandrao caught hold and accused Rama assaulted him by means of Gupti on his waist and chest as a

result the deceased Gajanand fell to the ground. The eye-witnesses, namely, Sushilabai (PW.1), Durgabai (PW.2), Vinod (PW.3), Laxman

(PW.15) made an attempt to settle the dispute and the deceased Gajanand died on the way when he was taken by the complainant party to Multai

for treatment. The merg was reported by Sushilabai (PW.1) vide Exhibit P/2 and the first information report was also lodged by the complainant

Sushilabai (PW.1) vide Exhibit P/1. The presence of both the accused persons, namely, Rama and Anandrao on the spot, catching hold of

deceased Gajanand by the c0-accused Anandrao and Pramod and causing injury by accused Rama to the deceased Gajanand on his right waist

and chest by means of Gupti have not been disputed by any of the eye-witnesses. The said testimony remained in ocular even in the cross

examination. Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13) has performed the postmortem of deceased Gajanand and proved the report vide Exhibit P/17, which is

reproduced as under:-

1.Punctured wound on left upper part of chest level of IV intercostal space size 2.5 X 1 cm X through and through thoracic cavity. Blood still

oozing out horizontal oblique.

2.Punctured wound over mid axillary line horizontal 3.5 X 1 cm X through and through abdominal cavity. Edges of both wounds are cleanly cut

well separated, inverted, cherryred colour looking wound pupils of both eyes are dilated cornea hazy. Planter flexion on both feet detected whole

face is pale and lips are cyanosed.

Opinion:- Rapid loss of massive blood after rupturing heart caused death due to irreversible hypovalemic shock followed by cerebral ischemia as a

result of penetrating wound No.1 (left on chest) by sharp entering pointed long sharp object. Time since death within 17 to 19 hours duration from

the time postmortem completed. Nature of death homicidal.

On perusal of the testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, Sushilabai (PW.1), Durgabai (PW.2), Vinod (PW.3), Laxman (PW.15)

corroborating the same by the medical evidence of Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13), it is apparent that accused/appellant Rama caused injuries to the

deceased Gajanand by means of Gupti on his waist and chest resulting into his death and also caused injuries to complainant Sushilabai by means

of Gupti on her left thigh.The said fact finds support from the testimony of M.L.Verma (PW.21), Investigating Officer of Police Station Multai,

District Betul, who proved the seizure of the weapon (Gupti) used in commission of the offence, the spot map and the other articles and those

articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination also finds support from the FSL report vide Exhibit P/25.

In the said context, if we appreciate the finding of the Trial Court regarding causing of injuries by the accused Rama by means of Gupti and the

nature of injuries received to deceased Gajanand as well as complainant/injured Sushilabai then it is apparent that those finding of fact has rightly

been recorded by the Trial Court. The argument as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that in the merg intimation (Exhibit P/2), the

place of incident has not been specified that has rightly been negatived looking to the spot map as well as the fact that the house of Laxman Sahu is

situated at Pawal and the house of accused is just in front of his house, therefore, the said argument was repelled.

The argument regarding omissions and contradictions on the point of time of the commission of the offence has rightly been repelled by the

Trial Court because the presence of accused was not doubted. Looking to the testimony of the eye-witnesses, namely, Sushilabai (PW.1),

Durgabai (PW.2), Vinod (PW.3), Laxman (PW.15), it is apparent that the accused Rama assaulted the deceased Gajanand on his waist and chest

by means of Gupti and assaulted the complainant Sushilabai by means of Gupti on her left thigh, which finds support from the medical evidence of

Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13) and also finds support from the F.S.L. report of seizure of the said Gupti made at the instance of accused Rama. Under

such circumstances, the conviction of appellant Rama as directed by the Trial Court is based on due appreciation of evidence, therefore, the finding

of conviction and the order of sentence as directed by the Trial Court do not warrant any interference.

Insofar as the argument regarding conversion of the offence from the charge of Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C is concerned, it

is seen that for the incident taken place on the same day in the morning, the accused Rama came on spot alongwith Gupti and in the evening when

the complainant Sushilabai asked him to open the blocked drain due to which the dirty water logged around in the house of her father, the accused

Rama assaulted the complainant Sushilabai on her left thigh by means of Gupti and when the deceased Gajanand came to save her mother, he was

also assaulted by the accused Rama by means of Gupti on his waist and chest resulting into his death and those injuries find support from the

medical evidence of Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13). The testimony of Dr.R.C.Udeniya (PW.13) apparently indicates the intensity of causing injury on

the vital part of the body of deceased Gajanand resulting into his death. In our considered opinion, the argument as advanced by learned counsel

for the appellant for convicting the appellant for the charge of Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C is not tenable and is liable to be repelled.

Resultantly, this appeal filed by the appellant Rama is devoid of any merit and hence it is dismissed maintaining the finding of conviction and the

order of sentence passed against appellant Rama for the charge of Sections 302/34, 324/34 of the I.P.C and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act

vide judgment dated 18.10.2006 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Multai to the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,

District Betul in Sessions Trial No.96/2006.

At the end, it is our duty to record the words of appreciation in favour of the amicus curiae, who assisted the Court in the disposal of this

appeal, which is pending since 2006 and in which appellant Rama is in jail for last more than eleven years.