Ramsingh And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rohit Arya, J.

This appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C., by three accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08/08/2006 passed

in sessions trial No.28/2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, convicting each of the the appellants under section 302

read with section 34 IPC (two counts) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

one year rigorous imprisonment & under section 323 read with section 34 IPC to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for causing injuries to the

complainant, Bhagwan Singh and under section 323 read with section 34 IPC to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for causing injuries to

Vishnuprasad.

The prosecution story, in brief is that on 18/11/2004 the complainant Bhagwansingh (P.W.1) alongwith Rajaram, Ramswaroop, Vishnuprasad &

Durgaprasad was at his agricultural field situated in village Pipalitya Rasoda, in the process of running the electric motor for drawing water. At that

time the accused, Hemsingh came there and asked why the electric wire of his connection was removed from the pump. On this, the complainant

informed that he has not removed it, thereafter, Hemsingh left the place uttering filthy abuses. At about 8.30 pm, the accused Hemsingh accompanied

by the co-accused Ramsingh, Gudda Bhil and Jagadish came to the agricultural field.

Accused Ramsingh and Jagdish armed with pharsi while the rest of the accused persons armed with lathi. They uttered filthy abuses in the name of

mother and told the complainant side as to why the connection of his electric motor was removed. Ramsingh with an intention to kill had caused head

injury to the complainant as a result he fell down. Rajaram intervened to save the complainant Bhagwansingh. On this, the accused Hemantsingh hit

with pharsi on the head of Rajaram. Accused Jagdish caused injury to Ramswaroop on his cheek by pharsi. Vishnu intervened to save Jagdish. On

this, the accused Gudda gave a lathi blow which hit on the legs of Vishnu. Thereafter, the accused gave lathi and pharsi blows to Rajaram and

Ramswaroop. Bhagwansingh intervened to save them, the accused inflicted injuries by lathi and pharsi. Rajaram and Ramswaroop died on the spot.

The complainant sent Durgaprasad to bring nearby Aadiwasis and from the village Jamanlal, Brijmohan sharma, Hariprasad Patidar and Hari Patel

Agrawal came on tractor to the place of occurrence.

The complainant Bhagwansingh reached Police Station Pachor and lodged the first information report to the aforesaid effect and the same was

registered at crime No.563/2004 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307 and 323/34 IPC.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer, Shrinivas Kelkar (P.W. 11) got prepared the spot map (exhibit P/2), In the presence of witnesses,

the panchanama of dead bodies of Rajaram and Ramswaroop have been prepared vide exhibits P/7 and P/8. The panchnama of dead body of

Ramswaroop was prepared vide exhibit P/9 and that of Rajaram vide exhibit P/10. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem and received the post

mortem reports vide exhibits P/5 and P/6. The injured Bhagwan Singh and Vishnuprasad have been sent for medical examination and the reports are

exhibits P/20 and P/21.

The accused Ramsingh, Gudda Bhil and Hemsingh have been arrested and prepared arrest memos (exhibits P/18 to P/20). However, on the basis of

the information given by them vide memorandums exhibits P/10 to P/12, the lathi and pharsi have been seized and prepared seizure memos vide

exhibits P/14 and P/16. From the place of occurrence, blood stained soil and simple earth, etc., have been recovered (exhibit P/17). The clothes of the

deceased were seized vide exhibit P/23. All the seized articles were sent for FSL examination and the report is exhibit P/3. After completion of the

investigation, a charge sheet was filed against four accused persons before the concerned Court.

Dr. D.R.Pachchisi (P.W.6) conducted post mortem of the deceased Ramswaroop (exhibit P/5) and Rajaram (exhibit P/6):

(A) Found following injuries on the body of Ramswaroop:

(1) Incised - 6.cm.x2cm. and bone deep at occipital area.

(2) Incised- 4cm x 2 cm and bone deep at parietal area. Near occipital bone.

(3) Lacerated 3cm x 2cm x 1cm with swelling over left ear (not clear)

(4) Bruise â€" 7 cm x 2 cm at right arm ant. aspect

(5) Bruise- 8 cm x 2 cm below the right arm ant. aspect.

(6) Bruise â€" 6 cm x 2 with swelling in the right fore arm post. aspect

(7) Bruise â€" 4 cm x 2 cm with swelling of the right hand posterior aspect

(8) Lacerated- 5 cm. X 3 cm x 2 cm at left arm with bleeding

(9) Bruise- 3 cm x 2 cm over left forearm with swelling around throat area

(10) Abrasion 4 cm x deep cut left hand posterior aspect

(11) Bruise- 6 c.m. X 2.5 cm at right thigh with swelling ant. aspect.

(12) Lacerated 3 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm at below with bleeding below the injury No.11.

(13) Bruise- 5 cm X 2.1/2 at the right hand lateral aspect

(14) Incised â€" 4 cm. X 1 cm x 1 cm at left leg medial aspect

(15) Incised- 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm at left leg lateral aspect

(16) Lacerated- 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on left leg above the ankle anterior aspect

(17) Bruise- 8 cm x 2 cm at left thigh lateral opined that death was due to massive shock brain haemorrhage with multiple injuries. Fracture of upper

limb and lower right limb leading to massive haemorrhage shock. Death homicidal in nature. As such, the deceased had suffered death within 6 -12

hours of the post mortem

(B) Found following injuries on the body of Rajaram

(1) incised - 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep at intra parietal area (skull) 3 cm above above the right eye brow obliquely;

(2) incised- 7 cm x 2 cm and bone deep at parietal bone above the 11 cm from right pinna

(3) Incised- 6 cm x 2 bone deep near the injury No.2 hemisphere

(4) Swelling â€" at forehead 9 cm x 3 cm laterally.

(5) Bruise- 13 cm x 2.5 cm at right chest.

(6) Lacerated- 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm above the elbow joint.

(7) Bruise- 20 cm x 3 cm at right arm anterior aspect with fracture right elbow joint.

(8) Bruise- 9 cm X 2 cm at right hand post. aspect

(9) Incised â€" 7 cm X 5 cm x 5 cm at right leg near the right ankle joint. Both bone of right tibia & fibula cut and centre to muscle

(10) Lacerated- multiple approx 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm at left leg anterior aspect fracture at medial knee opined that the death is due to multiple injuries

so that massive hemorrhage shock. Death is homicidal in nature. As such, the deceased had suffered death within 6 -12 hours of the post mortem

The complainant, Bhagwan Singh and the injured witness Vishnu have received the following injuries as per MLCs exhibits P/20 and P/21.

(I) Bhagwan Singh:

(1) Lacerated wound 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over left parietal area of skull.

(2) Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm x skin deep present at the front of right knee

(c) Swelling: 4 cm x 4 cm over left hip.

All the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of the injuries are within 12 hours approximately from the time of MLC;

Nature of injury No.(1) & (2) can be given after x ray report.

(II) Vishnuprasad: Multiple injuries over throat

(1) Abrasion: 2 x 2 cm x skin deep over front of left knee by hard and blunt object. Duration of the injuries are within 12 hours approximately from the

time of MLC. Simple injury.

The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/22, the documents on record. The accused have examined

one witness; Dr. R. Kumar (D.W.1) in their defence and placed Exhibits D/1 to D/9, the documents on record.

The trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 and section 323 read

with section 34 IPC against all the accused persons. All the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of false

implication and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Trial Judge while carefully examining the evidence of eye-witnesses has found that there is consistency in the statements of Bhagwansingh

(P.W.1), Vishnuprasad (P.W.2), Durgaprasad (P.W.3) and the other witnesses Hariprasad (P.W.4), Brajmohan (P.W.5) and Jamanlal (P.W.10). On

the basis of overwhelming evidence of occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused/appellants, various memorandums including seizure

memos [exhibits P/2, P/4, P/7 to 20 )], post mortem reports (exhibits P/5 & P/6), evidence of Dr. D.R.Pachchisi (P.W.6) and MLC reports of the

injured eye-witnesses Bhagwansingh and Vishnuprasad (exhibits P/21 and P/22) as well as the FSL report (exhibit P/3), the trial Court has concluded

that the accused/appellants caused injuries by lathi and pharsi resulting into death of the deceased, Ramswaroop and Rajaram as well as injuries

sustained by the injured witnesses Accordingly, held that charge under Section 302 IPC (two counts) has been proved against the accused/appellants

and further causing grievous injuries to the injured Bhagwansingh and Vishnuprasad as a result of which they have been convicted and passed the

sentence as mentioned hereinabove.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants while criticizing the impugned judgment contends that there is mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and

committed grave illegality having relied upon the testimony of the evidence led by cited witnesses including the alleged eye-witnesses, Bhagwansingh

(P.W.1), Vishnuprasad (P.W.2), Durgaprasad (P.W.3) and the other witnesses Hariprasad (P.W.4), Brajmohan (P.W.5) and Jamanlal (P.W.10).

According to the learned counsel, no motive is attributed to the appellants by the prosecution and further there was no cogent evidence to establish the

ingredients of offence under Section 302 IPC, therefore, the trial Court erred in convicting the appellants, hence, the appeal be allowed and the

appellants be acquitted from the charge.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the trial Court and submitted that the

conviction in question is well merited.

Looking to the impeccable testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence referred to above and well discussed by the trial Court from

paragraphs 17 to 48, according to us, the learned Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the deceased had died homicidal death on

account of injuries caused by the appellants by lathi and pharsi on the person of the two deceased persons and causing grievous injuries on the person

of the injured, Bhagwansingh and Vishnuprasad.

The argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that no motive has been attributed to the appellants for causing the injuries and

ultimate death of the deceased appears to be more of desperation than assistance to the appellants. Thus, the argument that the appellants cannot be

convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC (two counts) and section 323 read with section 34 IPC (two counts) is totally

misconceived for the reason that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants have participated in the commission of offence with

premediation. The said fact has been established from the statement of the complainant, Bhagwansingh (P.W.1) and the eye-witnesses; Vishnuprasad

(P.W.2) & Durgaprasad (P.W.3). The homicidal death of the deceased; by causing multiple injuries; an unnatural conduct of the appellants completes

the chain of circumstances and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Hence, the argument is rejected, accordingly.

We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with section 34

IPC (two counts) & under section 323 read with section 34 IPC (two counts) and we do not find any infirmity in it. The judgment is based on correct

appreciation of the evidence on record and further we see no reason to deviate ourselves from the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court. Hence, we

extend our stamp of approval on the reasonings, findings, conviction and sentence recorded and awarded by the Trial Court.

Ex consequentia, this appeal is found to be bereft of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed.