Sohbat Parte vs State Of M.P.

This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24/9/2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T. No.27/2007,

whereby learned Sessions Judge found appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life

imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

Brief facts of the case are that on receiving the information that Saheblal (PW/5), father of appellant/accused was ill, appellant Sohbat and his wife

Kamla Bai went to Shankar’s house situated at village Kalapani to see him on 17/11/2006, where Saheblal worked. At that time, Balmukund

(PW1) son of the appellant was at school. After returning from school, when he came to know that his parents had gone to Kalapani, he also went to

village Kalapani, where after eating the meal at 8-9 p.m, Balmukund (PW1), his mother Kamla Bai, aunt Phullo (PW3), Matlo (PW6) and appellant

Sohbat slept in a room. In the night at about 1-2 a.m., the appellant went outside the house to urinate. Balmukund (PW1) also followed him. After

peeing, appellant came inside the house and assaulted Kamalabai with an axe which hurt Kamalabai's neck. On hearing his mother’s shout,

complainant Balmukund came to the spot and snatched the axe from the appellant’s hand. Due to injury, Kamla Bai died on the spot. On receiving

that information, Inspector B.L. Singh (PW10) went to the spot, where Balmukund lodged the report (Dehati Nalishi)(Ex.P-1). He wrote that report

and sent it to P.S. Shahpur for original registration. On that report, police registered Crime no. 244/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 302

of the IPC. B.L. Singh (PW10) investigated the crime and during the investigation, he prepared spot map (Ex.P-3) and also seized simple soil and

blood-stained soil, axe, blanket, bed sheet and shawl from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-4). He also prepared inquest report of dead body

of Kamla Bai (Ex.P-7) and sent her dead body for postmortem to CHC, Shahpur along with application (Ex.P-10A), where Dr. Mahendra Patil

(PW9) conducted an autopsy of the dead body of Kamla Bai and gave P.M. report (Ex.P-9). He also seized the cloths from the dead body of

Kamalabai and sent it to P.S. Shahpur in a sealed packet through Constable Ramsingh, which was seized by the H.C. Rupendra from Ramsingh’s

possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/16). B.L. Singh (PW10) also arrested the appellant on 18/11/2006 and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P-11).

He also seized blood-stained clothes of the appellant worn by him and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-10) and he also queried from Dr. Mahendra Patil

(PW9) whether the injury sustained by Kamla Bai could be caused by the seized axe. On that, Dr. Mahendra Patil gave query report (Ex.P-9) to the

effect that the injury found by him on Kamalabai’s dead body could be caused by this axe. He also recorded the statement of prosecution

witnesses Balmukund (PW1), Charan Singh(PW2), Phullo Bai(PW3), Sammu Lal (PW4), Saheb Lal(PW5), Matlo Bai(PW/6), Shyambati and Jhabbu

and sent all seized articles for chemical examination to F.S.L. Sagar through S.P. Betul along with the draft (Ex.P-13) from where the report (Ex.P-

14) was received along with a letter and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before JMFC, Betul, who committed the case to

the Court of Session, where S.T. No.27/2007 was registered. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and tried the case. The prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses for proving its case. Appellant abjured

the guilt and took the defence that he was innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. However, after trial learned Sessions Judge found

appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as indicated above. Being aggrieved from that judgement,

appellant filed this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the so-called eyewitness Balmukund (PW1), clearly admitted in his cross-examination that at the

time of incident, he was outside of the house and after hearing shouting he reached the spot which clearly shows that Balmukund (PW1) did not see

the incident and other witnesses Phullo Bai (PW3), Sammulal (PW4), Saheblal (PW5) and Matlo Bai (PW6) also admitted in their court’s

statements that they did not see the incident. Balmukund (PW1) informed him regarding the incident which shows that they were also giving the

statements regarding the incident on the instant of Balmukund (PW1), while he himself did not see the incident so their statements also have no value.

Learned trial Court without appreciating these facts wrongly found appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. Even

otherwise, prosecution witnesses Balmukund (PW1) and Saheblal (PW5) admitted in their statements that at the time of incident, appellant was

unsound mind. So otherwise also, the act of the appellant according to section 84 of IPC comes under the exception. So, offence under Section 302

was not anyway made out against the appellant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that from the statement of the Balmukund (PW1), who is the son of the appellant which

also corroborated by the statements of other prosecution witnesses it is clearly proved that the appellant murdered his wife Kamla Bai. So, learned

trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence and prayed for rejection of this appeal.

This Court has gone through the record and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for both the parties.

On the point that Kamla Bai died on the intervening night of 1718/11/2006 at Shankar’s house situated at village Kalapani and her death was

homicidal and amounting to murder. B.L. Singh (PW10) deposed that on 18/11/2006 on the information, he went to village Kalapani, wherein he found

the dead body of Kamala Bai lying in injured state at Shanker’s house.

His statement is also supported by inquest report (Ex.P-7) and also corroborated by the statements of Phullo Bai (PW3) and Matlobai (PW6). They

also deposed that on the date of incident at 11 p.m., when they were sleeping inside the house they were awakened by shouts and saw Kamala Bai

lying in an injured state and also saw one injury on her neck and the statements of Sammulal (PW4), Saheblal (PW5) and Charan Singh (PW2), who

also deposed that on receiving the information they reached the Shankar’s house, where they saw the dead body of Kamala Bai lying in an injured

state.

Dr. Mahendra Patil (PW9), who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Kamla Bai also deposed that on 18/11/2006, he was posted as Medical

Officer at C.H.C. Shahpur, Distt. Betul. On that day, he conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Kamla Bai, in which he found following injury on

the dead body of Kamla Bai:-

Incised wound obliquely placed on the nape of neck left side 5â€x2â€x cutting IIIrd & IV cervical vertebrae by cutting all muscles, vessels and

nerves.

He further deposed that the injury was caused by a hard and sharp object like an axe and was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of

nature. In his opinion, Kamla Bai had died due to shock which was caused due to excessive haemorrhage from the injury and injury was homicidal in

nature and the duration of death was within 24 hours from the postmortem.

In this regard, his statement is also corroborated by postmortem report (Ex.P/10). At this point, appellant has not given any significant challenge to the

statements of the above-mentioned witnesses in their cross-examination.

So, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements in this regard. From the statements of above-mentioned witnesses, it is clearly proved that in the

intervening night of 17-18/11/2006, Kamla Bai died at Shankar's house and her death was homicidal which amounts to murder.

On the point that the appellant murdered his wife Kamla Bai, Balmukund (PW1) deposed that his grandfather Saheblal was ill. So, on the date of

the incident, his father appellant Sohbat Lal, mother Kamla Bai and he went to village Kalapani to see him where they ate dinner at Shankar’s

house at around 9-10 p.m. Thereafter, his grandfather Saheblal and Shanker went to farm and his father appellant Sohbat, mother Kamla Bai, his

aunts Phullo Bai, Matlo Bai and he slept in a room. In the night at about 1-2 a.m., when the appellant went outside the house to urinate, he followed

him. After peeing, appellant came inside the house and assaulted Kamalabai with an axe. On hearing her shout, he went to the spot and snatched the

axe from appellant’s hand and awakened Phullo and Matlo. Due to injury, his mother died. At 10-11 a.m. when police came on the spot, he

narrated the incident to the police. His statement is also supported from the FIR (Ex.P-1) which was also proved by B.L. Singh (PW10) and his

statement was also corroborated by the statement of Phullo Bai (PW3) and Matlo Bai (PW6), who also deposed that appellant’s father Saheblal

was working in their field and lived at their house. At the time of the incident, he had fallen ill and so appellant and his wife Kamala Bai and his son

Balmukund came to his house to see him. In the night after eating dinner, Shankar and Saheblal went to the farm and they slept in the house. In the

night, they heard the sound of screaming and Balmukund (PW1) awakened them. At that time, they saw Kamalabai lying in a critical condition and

also saw the injury on her neck. Balamukund told him that the appellant assaulted Kamalabai with an axe. Thereafter, Kamala Bai died.

In this regard, statement of Balmukund (PW1) also corroborated from the circumstantial evidence collected by B.L. Singh (PW10) during

investigation, who deposed that he arrested the appellant on 18/11/2006 and prepared the arrest memo (Ex.P-11) and also seized a blood stained dhoti

and one shirt which was worn by appellant Sohbat at the time of his arrest and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-10) and also seized one axe from the

spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-4). He further deposed that he sent seized clothes of appellant and axe to FSL Sagar along with draft

(Ex.P/13). FSL report (EX.P/14) was received, in that report, it is also mentioned that human blood was found in the clothes of the appellant dhoti

(Article E) and shirt (Article F). The appellant did not give any explanation in this regard. This evidence is also corroborated by the statement of

Balmukund (PW1) that the appellant caused injury to Kamla Bai. Even father of the appellant Saheblal (PW/5) stated in his cross-examination that

appellant admitted before him after the incident that he murdered Kamala Bai.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Balmukund (PW1) in his cross-examination clearly admitted that at the time of the incident, he

was outside the house. On hearing shouts of his mother, he rushed inside the house and snatched the axe from his hand which clearly shows that

Balmukund reached the spot after the incident and he did not see the appellant inflicting injury to his mother Kamla Bai. Only on the basis that, when

Balmukund reached the spot, he saw that his mother laying in injured state and the appellant was standing near her with an axe, it cannot be assumed

that appellant murdered deceased Kamalabai. Other prosecution witnesses namely Phullo Bai (PW3) and Matlo Bai (PW6) also admitted in their

statements that they did not see the incident. So from the prosecution evidence, it is not proved that the appellant inflicted injury on deceased Kamla

Bai. But his argument has no force.

From the statement of Balmukund (PW1), it is clear that at the time of incident, only Balmukund (PW1), his father (appellant), his mother Kamla

Bai, aunts Phullo and Matlo Bai were sleeping at Shankar’s house in a room at night, on hearing shouts of his mother, Balmukund (PW1)

immediately reached the spot and saw his mother was lying in an injured state and the appellant was standing near her with blood-stained axe on

which human blood was found in the examination. Except for appellant, nobody was there.

Phullo and Matlo Bai were sleeping soon after the incident Balmukund (PW1) awakened them and immediately informed them that appellant had

assaulted Kamala Bai. In the examination of the clothes worn by the appellant at the time of incident, stains of human blood was found. Appellant did

not give any explanation of these circumstances which clearly proves that the appellant assaulted Kamla Bai with an axe. Balmukund (PW1) is the

son of the appellant and why he would falsely implicate his father if he had not killed Kamala Bai.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Balmukund himself admitted in his cross-examination that the mental state of his father

was not good and he took his father for treatment. Saheblal (PW5) also admitted that the mental state of appellant was not good. So from their

statements, it is clearly proved that at the time of the incident, the appellant was of unsound mind. But, this argument also has no force. Although,

Balmukund (PW1) and Saheblal (PW5) admitted in their cross-examination, that the mental state of appellant was not good. But, only on their oral

statements, it can not be assumed that at the time of incident the appellant had unsound mind. It is not for the prosecution to establish that a person,

who strikes another with a deadly weapon was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or

contrary to law. Everyone is presumed to know the consequences of his act. Similarly, everyone is also presumed to know the law. These are not the

facts that the prosecution has to establish. It is for this reason that Section 105 of The Evidence Act places upon the accused person the burden of

proving the exception upon which he relies.

In the present case, appellant did not produce any evidence showing that at that time of the incident, he had an unsound mind. On the contrary

from the statements of prosecution witnesses, it appears that at the date of incident, appellant had come to village Kalapani to see his father at

Shankar’s house, where his father was residing at the time of incident and at night, had dinner and up to that time he did not show any

abnormality. It also appears from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that at the time of incident, apart from Kamala Bai, Phullo Bai (PW3),

and Matlo Bai (PW6) were also sleeping in the room. But, appellant did not hurt them. There is no evidence on record that appellant beat any person

before the commission of the crime. Even the trial judge in his judgement mentioned that during the examination of accused, under section 313 of

Cr.P.C., it did not appear that accused was mentally unsound in any way. So, all these circumstances lead to one conclusion that appellant was not

insane and he had acted like a sane man and murdered his wife with some motive.

So, in the considered opinion of this Court from the prosecution evidence, it is clearly proved that on the intervening night of 17-18/11/2006,

appellant assaulted Kamla Bai with an axe and murdered her. So, learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellant guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 is upheld. The period

already undergone shall be set off from the period of the substantive jail sentence.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.