Satish Sondhiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Avanindra Kumar Singh, J

This appeal has been filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 28.12.2024 passed by learned Eight Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T.No.27/2021 [State of MP through PS, Civil Line, Rewa Vs. Satish Sondhiya and another] whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation of default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that informant-Dr.Alakh Prakash, CMO of SGMH, Rewa (PW.12) sent MLC (Ex.D/5) dated 07.10.2020 at Police Help Centre, SGMH, Rewa informing that deceased (Ajay Singh) was admitted to SGMH, Rewa at 11.15 pm on 06.10.2020 on account of road accident who has died on 07.10.2020 and dead body is kept in mortuary. On the basis of above information Merg intimation (Ex.P/22) bearing Marg No.682/20 was registered at SGMH Chowki, Rewa. Abhishek Singh (PW.1) lodged 'Dehati Nalisi' (Ex.P/1) to effect that he is resident of Sirmour and is studying in ITI College, Rewa. Around 09.30 pm on 06.10.2020 he alongwith deceased (Ajay Singh), Sanjeev Singh Geharwar, Ankit Singh, Atul Sondhiya, and Aman Khan had gone on motorcycle from Khutehi to Old Bus Stand, Rewa for bringing meals. After receiving food packets they were returning to Khutehi. He, Sanjeev Singh and deceased were on one motorcycle, which was driven by deceased. Ankit Singh, Atul Sondhiya and Aman Khan were on another motorcycle (Pulsur). Around 10.30 pm when they reached near Gupta Petrol Pump there were 4-5 persons in Innova vehicle. One of them shouted on them as to why they were loitering in late night and abused them. When they stopped them from abusing, two of them assaulted deceased and Sanjeev Singh with belt. Thereafter, Ankit Singh, Atul Sondhiya, Aman Khan intervened and they later on proceeded towards Khutehi by their respective motorcycles. At 10.40 pm when they reached near Auditorium at that time Innova Car (MP-17/TA-2581) which was following them, ran over the motorcycle as a result of which deceased and Sanjeev Singh fell down with motorcycle. Then driver of Innvo Car with an intention to kill them again reversed the car and again ran over them. They got entangled in Car which dragged them for about 100 meters and thereafter they fled away. As a result, deceased sustained grievous injuries on his forehead, hands, chest, stomach and legs. Atul and Aman Khan took deceased on motorcycle and he & Sanjeev Singh by 108 Ambulance were taken to SGMH, Rewa for treatment. During treatment Ajay Singh expired on 06.10.2020 at 12 midnight. Sanjeev Singh was admitted in SGMH, Rewa.

On information by Constable No.568, Marg No.24/2020 (Ex.P/14) was registered at Police Station, Civil Line, Rewa. Panchnama proceeding of dead body of deceased was carried out in hospital premises itself vide Ex.P/3. The dead body was identified by 'Panchas' and suggestion for postmortem was given. Postmortem report of deceased is Ex.P/21 and medical report of injured-Abhishek Singh & Sanjeev Singh are Ex.P/23 & P/24. On the basis of Merg investigation, medical report and statements of witnesses, offence against accused persons was registered at Police Station, Civil Line, Rewa vide Crime No.464/2020 under Sections 302, 323, 294, 34 IPC which is Ex.P/15.

During investigation statements of witnesses, namely, Atul Sondhiya, Aman Khan, Sanjeev Singh Geharwar, Ankit Singh Baghel, Manendra Singh vide Ex.D/1, D/2, D/3, D/4 to D/4. Spot map was prepared as Ex.P/4. Clothes of injured and deceased were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5, P/8 & P/19). Memorandum statements of accused persons Satish Sondhiya & Pintu Sondhiya are Ex.P/9 & P/11 respectively. Motor vehicle in question was seized from appellant/accused (Satish Sondhiya) vide seizure memo Ex.P/10 and its mechanical report is Ex.P/25. Accused/appellant & Pintu Sondhiya were arrested vide Ex.P/12 & P/13. CCTV Footage of place of incident is CD (Article-A/1). Clothes of injured, a sample soil from the place of incident and blood stained soil were collected (Ex.P.26) and sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/27 and report received in this regard is Ex.P/34. After complete investigation and carrying out other necessary formalities charge-sheet was filed in the court of CJM, Rewa for offences under sections 302, 323, 294, 34 IPC. Thereafter, matter was committed to the competent court.

The appellant when charged with aforesaid offences denied the same and sought trial. After prosecution evidence the appellant/accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied prosecution evidence and in defence pleaded that he neither performed nor is engaged in driving of vehicle. He has never driven Innova Car. He is engaged in work of Tyre puncture alongwith his brother (Manish). He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question.

The prosecution examined total 19 witnesses including five (05) eye witnesses, namely, Abhishek Singh (PW.1), Atul Sondhiya (PW.2), Aman Khan (PW.3), Sanjeev Singh Geharwar (PW.4) and Ankit Singh (PW.5) and two (02) medical witnesses, namely, Dr.Yashuwant Singh (PW.10) who conducted postmortem of deceased and Dr.Alakh Prakash who gave MLC report (Ex.P/23 & P/24) and gave death information of deceased by Ex.D/5. The prosecution exhibited documents vide Ex.P/1 to P/34. Whereas defence examined only Manish Kumar Sondhiya as Defence Witness No.1 and exhibited five documents as Ex.D/1 to D/5.

Learned trial Court on the basis of material available on record and appreciating oral and documentary evidence has found the appellant/accused guilty for the charged offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced as has been indicated hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has not properly evaluated the evidence on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses which are absolutely not trustworthy. The ingredients of section 302 IPC are not made against appellant/accused. So called last seen witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The procedure regarding identification of appellant/accused was vitiated and, therefore, cannot be believed. C.C.T.V. Footages are not clear. Trial Court has erroneously proceeded to convict the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction of appellant cannot be sustained. Impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and claimed dismissal of instant appeal.

We have perused the record and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

PW.1-Abhishek Singh, who is an eye witness, has stated in his examination-in-chief that incident is of 06.10.2020 around 09.30 pm when he had gone alongwith his friends Ajay Singh (deceased) and Sanjeev Singh to Old Bus Stand on motorcycle for bringing meals and while returning near College Square one Innova Car was parked and near it two persons were standing who abused them. When they tried to stop them, they assaulted them with belt. Their other friends who were on another motor cycle (Pulsar) they intervened. Thereafter, when matter was resolved, they proceeded ahead. When they reached near Auditorium then those persons followed them and dashed their Car against the motorcycle from behind and thereafter reversed the Car and again ran over the motorcycle which got entangled and dragged for about 40-50 meters. As a result of this incident Ajay Singh (deceased) sustained injuries on chest, and other parts of body therefore, he was taken to hospital, where during treatment Ajay Singh expired. In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination this witness has stated that he had neither seen the persons who were standing near Innova Car prior to incident nor was familiar with them in any way. In para 5 he stated that incident is of about 10-11 pm. He had not lodged any report regarding the incident to the Police. He stated on own that after incident he himself was admitted to Hospital. He also stated that he does not remember the registration number of two motorcycles belonging to his friends. He stated that it is incorrect to say that at the time of incident he had not sustained any injury, therefore, he had not filed any document regarding medical treatment. In paragraph 7 he stated that he did not know Satish Sondhiya by name or face. Police did not conduct identification parade regarding Satish Sondhiya but told them names of Satish Sondhiya, despite that identification parade was not arranged by the Police.

PW.2 (Atul Sondhiya) has stated that person seen in Video Conferencing is Satish Sondhiya. The person who was sitting in Innova Car besides is Pintu Sondhiya. He knows deceased (Ajay Singh) who was living in his 'Mohalla'. He also knows accused persons, Satish Sondhiya and Pintu Sondhiya are the persons who ran over his friend. He does not know accused before the incident. The incident took place adjacent to Rajkumar Auditorium on 06.10.2020. When they had gone to bring food by motorcycle then near petrol pump in Innova Car MP No.17/TA-2581 two persons were standing together and three persons were also standing together and then two persons started abusing them and asking them as to why they are roaming late night. When Abhishek objected then accused took out their belt and assaulted Abhishek, Sanjeev Singh and Ajay Singh. Then he, his friend (Aman) and Ankit intervened but left when quarrel ended. Thereafter, while they were going away on motorcycle then at about 10.40 pm in night near Auditorium Innova Car came from the back side and dashed against the motorcycle of Ajay Singh, who fell down with motorcycle. Accused persons reversed the Car and again ran over motorcycle of Ajay, Sanjeev & Abhishek. Motor cycle got entangled in the Car and it was dragged for about 40 meters alongwith Ajay Singh, Sanjeev Singh and Abhishek. Then these persons disappeared alongwith Innova Car. Ajay Singh sustained injuries all over the body. Sanjeev Singh had injuries on his leg and waist. Abhishek was injured in legs and hands. Then he and Aman took Ajay Singh to SGMH, Rewa on motorcycle. Other two injured were taken to hospital by Ambulance. Ajay Singh was treated but he died about 12..00 midnight. While Abhishek Singh and Sanjeev Singh were admitted in SGMH, Rewa. On the next day, Police called them and recorded his statement. Police investigated the matter, seized soil from the spot and torn jeans of Abhishek Singh. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination he stated that at the petrol pump the incident hardly took one minute. In paragraph 8 he stated that at the time of accident headlights of Innova Car and Motorcycles were on. In about half minute the Innova Car fled away after causing incident. He also admitted that at petrol pump he did not see registration number of Innova Car. In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination he admitted that in Police Station, Police personnel showed accused-Satishh and told him that this is Satish Sondhiya who was driving the vehicle, therefore, he knows name of Satish Sondhiya. Thereafter, in paragraph 11 he stated on his own that he knows Satish Sondhiya before this incident had taken place. The Police personnel conducted identification parade in Civil Lines Police Station. He again stated on his own that at the time of incident he saw the number of car. In paragraph 16 of his cross-examination he stated that in Civil Lines Police Station for the first time Police personnel told him the names of accused persons on 07.10.2020. The accused persons were in Police custody in Civil Lines Police Station. Police personnel got the accused persons identified at Police Station but no written 'panchanama' was made.

PW.3 -Aman Khan has stated that person seen in Video Conferencing is Satish Sondhiya. He saw him at the time of incident. This person also stated that earlier incident took place at Petrol Pump and thereafter in paragraph 4 he stated that after incident at petrol pump when they were going away, then near Auditorium a white Innova Car came behind them. On seeing the car they took their motorcycle to the side of the road but Innova Car dasahed against the motorcycle of Ajay Singh, as a consequence Sanjeev Singh and Abhishek Singh fell down at some distance but Ajay Singh and his motorcycle remained entangled. The driver again backed the Car and ran over deceased-Ajay Singh. He can easily identify the persons who was sitting in the Innova Car. He identified through Video Conferencing Satish Sondhiya as a person who was driving the Car during the incident he was one of the persons who assaulted them at the petrol pump. Thereafter, they ran away in Innova Car. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination he stated that Police did not get the accused persons identified by him. In paragraph 18 this witness stated that he did not identify the accused at the behest of the Police. He further stated that he enquired in the matter through Atul Sondhiya and this fact came into his knowledge that vehicle belongs to Harish Sondhiya and Satish Sondhiya is his driver. In paragraph 20 of his cross-examination he stated that he cannot say as to which side of Car dashed against the motorcycle. When Innova Car dashed against the motorcycle of Ajay Singh he saw the incident from a distance of about 40 meters. He admitted that when he reached the spot, then Innova Car had already gone away.

PW.4-Sanjeev Singh stated that he identified Pintu Sondhiya out of 5 persons standing there. When the Court asked the witness to identify Satish Sondhiya out of 5 persons then he stated that none of the persons is Satish Sondhiya. When he was asked to identify in Video Conferencing then he identified accused-Satish Sondhiya. This person also deposed about the incident at petrol pump when they were returning after getting the food packet. He further narrated that when the quarrel was settled and they were going then suddenly at very high speed Innova Car came from the back and dashed against the motorcycle, in which, he alongwith Ajay Singh and Abhishek were sitting. All fell down and were injured. The driver reversed the vehicle and again ran over Ajay Singh. He was thereafter taken to hospital. The Police investigated the matter. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination he admitted that no identification parade was carried out by the Police regarding accused persons. In paragraph 10 this witness has admitted that family members of deceased-Ajay Singh have filed claim petition for claiming compensation regarding injuries sustained in motorcycle.

PW-5 Ankit Singh stated that the person seen in Video conferencing is accused - Satish Sondhiya. He knows Pinto Sondhiya from the time of incident like other witnesses as mentioned above. This person also narrated that at the time of incident at Petrol Pump and after the quarrel had ended when they were going away then Innova Car M.P.-17-T.V.2581 driven by Satish Sondhiya while Pinto Sondhiya was sitting beside him had dashed against the bike of Ajay who got entangled in the car and was dragged for some distance. He also stated that the car driver had earlier reversed the car and ran over Ajay. Thereafter, the driver of the car had fled away with the car. In para -5 he stated that at the time of quarrel at Petrol Pump they had threatened that they will run over us by the car. He stated that Satish gave memorandum (Ex.P-9) on which there are his signature on 'A' to 'A' part. Satish Sondhiya took the Police to his house from where Innova Car was seized from him. Seizure Memo is Ex.P-10. There is his signature on 'A' to 'A' part of Ex.P-10. He also identified the sketch of the car (Article A-

6). As per Para-10 of deposition CCTV footage was played by the Learned Presiding Officer of the trial court on laptop in which it is seen that on 6.10.2020 at 10:39:49 two bikes are going and Innova Car is coming at a high speed from the back. The witnesses identified it as same car which had dashed from behind the motor-cycle of Ajay at 10:40:41 PM. This car is again seen at college chouraha and C.D. is Article A-1 and screen short of this scene is A-2 and A-3. The prosecution has declared this witness as hostile in which he stated that the correct registration number of Innova Car is M.P.-17-TA2581. In para-26 this witness stated that his motor-cycle was behind by 15 to 20 metres from the motor-cycle of the persons who were injured in the incident. In para-28 when this witness was shown the CCTV Footage (ArticleA-1) on the screen then he denied that on the motor-cycle going ahead of him two persons were sitting and on the motor-cycle going at back one person was sitting. He stated on his own that on both motor¬cycles 3-3 persons were sitting. He admitted that in footage Article A-1 screen shot A-2 it cannot be seen as to the number of persons sitting in Innova Car. He also admitted that registration number of Innova Car is also not visible. He also admitted that in Article A-1 footage ahead of the Innova Car another car is also visible. From the opposite direction another vehicle is coming. He also admitted that car did not have any special marking. In para-29, he stated that Police got Satish Sondhiya identified in the Police Station, Civil Lines. In para-31 he stated that the Police showed him CCTV Footage in the Police Station.

PW/6- Niranjan Singh has stated that he does not know the accused Satish or the accused Pintu. He was informed by his nephew Manendra Singh about the incident in which Ajay was ran over by a car, therefore they went to the hospital. The incident occurred on 06.10.2020. During treatment his son died at about 12:00 to 12:30 am in the night. Postmortem was carried out in the morning. Atul Sondhiya informed him that while they were returning after getting the packed food, an Innova car driver ran over his son. Backing the car, the driver again ran over his son Ajay. The number of the Innova car was MP17-TA2581.

PW/7-Manendra Singh is a hearsay witness, and he received information of the incident from Atul Sondhiya as per his court statement. He further stated that he took his uncle Niranjan Singh and Aunt Sangeeta Singh to the hospital. He saw that Ajay was injured on the head. After about half an hour, Ajay Singh expired. He also stated that Atul told him that the number of the Innova car was MP17-TA2581 by which Ajay Singh was ran over.

PW/10- Dr. Yashwant Kumar Singh, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, Ajay, and gave the postmortem report (Ex. P/21), has narrated in detail that there were 18 injuries on the body of the deceased. He has also opined that death was caused on account of the multiple injuries. In cross-examination Para 4, he stated that it is wrong to say that if a person is entangled in another vehicle and is dragged, then the injuries that were caused to the deceased could be caused, but he admitted that the abrasion could be caused in the road accident. Injuries No. 17 and 18 could be caused if a person comes under the back wheel of a car, then he stated on his own that it is possible.

PW/18- R.K. Verma, T.I. Police, has stated that on the basis of the memorandum of the accused, Satish Sondhiya (Ex. P/9), he seized the Innova car bearing No. MP17TA2581 in the possession of Satish Sondhiya, on which on the right-hand side there were scratches, the front number plate was broken, and the back number plate was intact. The number plate, which was broken, only head "7 T.A. 2581" written on it, there was a scratch on the bonnet. In cross-examination in Para 10, this witness stated that the footage he obtained was of the place where the quarrel took place at the petrol pump, but there was no footage of the place where the deceased was ran over. This witness was asked if there was a camera at Gupta Petrol Pump, but he has not produced footage. Then this witness replied that he had written to the Superintendent of Police to get the CCTV footage from the Gupta Petrol Pump to the last place of the incident, but he only received the footage of College Choraha. In Para 13, this witness admitted that no identification parade was carried out by the witness regarding the accused person. In Para 15, he admitted that before giving notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act to the owner of the Innova car, the accused Satish was sent to jail. In Para 16, he admitted that he did not get the car examined by a forensic expert to inquire as to the period of the dent/scratch. In Para 22, he stated that till 09.11.2020, it was not clear as to which person was driving the Innova car; therefore, notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act was given, then he stated on his own that notice was given just to clear the matter from the registered owner.

PW/19- Harish Sondhiya stated that accused - Satish is his brother. This witness stated that he has a white Innova car bearing registration No.MP17-TA2581. On Ex.P/32, on B to B part and on Ex.P/33 A to A part there is no signature, he has not written anything on it. Prosecution declared this witness hostile. In cross-examination, he only supported the prosecution to the extent that police seized his vehicle as police personnel came home and they abused him and took his vehicle by force. When asked that if the police took the vehicle by force then did he complain to anyone, he stated that when he went to the Police Station Civil lines they detained him, but he did not report the matter to the higher authority because the police had threatened him that they will keep Ganja in his vehicle and get him involved in a drug case.

Learned trial Court have acquitted Pinto Sondhiya. The defense of the appellant, Satish, is that he did not drive the concerned vehicle at any time. He has been falsely implicated.

On perusal of the record, it is seen that in mechanical report (Ex.P25), it is mentioned that on the right hand side of the front tyre there is a little scratch. Vehicle number is MP17TA2581 whereas PW/18- R.K. Verma Investigation Officer mentioned that number plate was broken and "7 T.A. 2581" was visible. In considered view of this court, if there were other damage on the body of the car, then it should have been mentioned in Mechanical report (Ex.P/25). In article 'A-1' CCTV footage, neither the number nor the occupants are visible, which is of 06.10.2020 at 10:39:49 PM of Rewa College Chouraha, and two cars are visible in opposite directions. In article 'A-3' a copy of the footage of Rewa College Chouraha on 06.10.2020 at 10:40:41 PM, again neither the number nor the occupants are visible. In article 'A-5 photograph, a person is seen standing, and the front number is broken, and on the broken number plate No.7-TA2581 is seen therefore the mechanical report does not correlate to the photo of the car or to the CCTV. Police did not get the accused person identified which was necessary as the FIR (Ex. P/15) did not mention the name of the accused but only the car number. Earlier disputes at the petrol pump and the persons identified at the petrol pump would not be material unless it is proved by cogent evidence that they were the same persons with whom the quarrel took place at the petrol pump, then it can be a motive for the crime, but the identification of the car in color, model, and registration and a clear-cut identification of the person who was driving the car at the relevant point of time when the offense took place is very relevant, but in this case police did not conduct the identification parade for the accused before the Executive Magistrate as per standard practice by mixing the accused persons with the other person of the same age, height and health etc. Therefore, non-conduction of an identification parade of the accused in this case in the fact and circumstance of the case is fatal to prosecution. Therefore, on the basis of the available documentary and oral evidence, this appellate court is of the view that it cannot be said with certainty that the second incident in which the deceased Ajay was ran over was caused by Satish Sondhiya driving the car. It has to be remembered that co-accused Pintu has been acquitted by the learned trial court, and the state has not filed any appeal. Pintu was charged under Section 302/34 of IPC the learned trial court has acquitted Satish of the charges under Sections 294, 323 of IPC also, therefore on perusal of the entire documentary and oral evidence, especially the identity of the person who was driving the vehicle when Ajay was ran over by the Innova Car and the identity of the vehicle with registration No. MP17-TA2581 that ran over Ajay Singh, becomes highly doubtful.

Therefore on overall appreciation of the documents available on record and oral evidence, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its charges against the appellant accused beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 of IPC.

Disposal of the case property would be as per the judgment of the trial Court.

If appellant is not required in any other case, he be released from the jail immediately. Let original record of the trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court.