AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the accused persons, being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.10.1996, passed by the Sessions Judge
Sehore, in S.T. No.222/1995, whereby the appellants have been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 304 part-II and 342 of the IPC and
sentenced to R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and R.I. for six months
with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default sentence.
The prosecution case in short is that, on 21.9.1995 at about 1:10
a.m., in the night Umrao Singh was called by Sahodra Bai. When Umrao Singh
went inside her house, he was caught by the appellants and beaten by kicks
& fists and sticks. Umrao Singh (since deceased) sustained fatal injuries over
his head and other parts of his body. Umrao Singh was brought to the police
station and after sometime he died. On the intimation of Shyam Singh, merg
was registered by the Police Ashta, District Sehore. On the dehatinalishi
lodged by Umrao Singh, police registered a case against the appellants. After
due inquest, offences under Sections 302, 342 / 34 of the IPC and section 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered. Charge
sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellants. Case was
committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sehore.
Charges under Sections 302, 342 and 120(B) of the IPC have
been framed by the trial Court. The appellants abjured their guilt. They
pleaded that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case. No
witness has been examined by the defence.
After considering overall prosecution evidence, learned trial Court
convicted the appellants under Sections 304 part-II, 342 of the IPC and
sentenced for 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and six months RI with fine
of Rs.500/- respectively.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
As per statement of sub-inspector Shyam Singh (PW-16), in the
intervening night of 20 and 21.9.1995 at about 1:10 a.m., on receiving
telephonic massage at police station Astha, he went to the spot. He lodged
Dehatinalishi ExP/30 on the report of Sahodra Bai. Ex.P/31 on the report of
the deceased, Sahodra Bai reported that the deceased entered into her
house. Therefore, Umrao was tied up at their otlay (Chabutra). On the other
hand, the deceased Umrao himself reported Dehatinalishi Ex.P/31 at 1:00
a.m. in the midnight, Sahodra Bai called him inside her home. Thereafter he
was caught hold and beaten by the appellants Shiv Narayan, Kanhaiyalal,
Ramchander, Asharam and Radheshyam.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Dehatinalishi
has not been lodged by the deceased. This Court is not in agreement with
above contention, because so many witnesses saw that the police brought the
deceased from the premises of the appellants in injured condition. Gokul Bai
(PW-1) wife of the deceased and Dhapu Bai (PW-5) sister of the deceased
heard his cries before his death, from the appellants'' house. Learned counsel
for the appellants submits that Gokul Bai (PW-1), Phool Singh (PW-2) and
Prahlad (PW-3) are relatives and interested witnesses, hence on the basis of
their evidence, the appellants cannot be convicted. But in cases of "Waman
and others Vs. State of Maharastra, 2011 Cri.L.J. 4827," "Yogesh
Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh, 2017 Cri.L.J. 291 (SC) and "Dalbeer Kour
Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Cri.L.J. 418" it was held by the Supreme Court
that:-
"interested witnesses and relative witnesses are natural witnesses, they are not interested witnesses. Their testimony can be relied upon."
Thus the testimony of the related witnesses cannot be ignored.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the
statements of the witnesses are contradictory and so many omission were
present in their testimony. This Court has not found any material omission and
contradiction between them. As per principle laid down by this Court in the
case of "Hari Narayan Vs. State of M.P., 2017 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 126 (MP)"
and "Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh, 2017 Cri.L.J. 291 (SC) it was
held that:-
"Minor discrepancies in statements occurring due to illiteracy of witness and long gap between recording of testimony and offences - Not a ground to discard evidence".
In the light of above principle, this Court does not find any
contradiction which adversely effected the prosecution case.
ASI Shyam Singh (PW-16) denied the suggestion of learned
counsel for the appellant that dehatinalishi report has not been lodged by
deceased Umrao Singh. No suggestion has been given to him that at the time
of lodging of report, the deceased Umrao Singh was not able to narrate the
statement. Thus, it is established that Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/31) was lodged by
the deceased himself. It may be considered as "dying declaration" under
Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the same is reliable.
As per the statements of Gokul Bai (PW-1) wife of the deceased
and another eyewitness Hari Narayan (PW-12), previously the deceased was
working at the house of appellant Shiv Narayan. His love relations developed
with Madhu, who is the daughter of appellant Shiv Narayan. Therefore, such
incident occurred. Hari Narayan (PW-12) deposed that the deceased was
arrested earlier on the report of appellant Shiv Narayan. Gokul Bai (PW-1) and
Hari Narayna (PW-12) have also stated that at the time of incident, Madhu
was staying at her parental house. Naturally, the appellants were annoyed
with the deceased. Hence, motive of the accused persons has been proved.
It seems doubtful that the deceased trespassed into the house
of Sahodra Bai to commit any offence against her. The version of Gokul Bai
(PW-1) and Dhapu Bai (PW-15) are found more reliable that at midnight,
Omprakash came to their house and called the deceased. Then, deceased
Umrao Singh went to house of the accused along with Omprakash. After
sometime, Gokul Bai (PW-1) and Dhapubai (PW-5) went towards the spot and
heard the cries of deceased, who said "eq>s cpkvkss". Their evidence is quite
reliable, which is not rebutted in their cross-examination. Hence, learned trial
Court has properly found that the incident took place at the premises of the
accused. Ranjeet (PW-4) has also corroborated the prosecution story. He saw
the deceased at the spot tied with rope and at that time he was injured. Dilip
(PW-7) also saw that police took the deceased from the spot (premises of the
accused persons) in injured state.
Dhapubai (PW-5) informed the incident to Dev Singh and
Meharban Singh. On her request, they went to call her brothers. Phool Singh
(PW-2), Prahlad (PW-3) and Meharban Singh (PW-6) have also corroborated
the testimony of Dhapubai. Due to fear of the accused persons, Phool Singh
(PW-2) and Prahlad (PW-3) directly went to the police station. They saw the
deceased at the police station in critical condition.
Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15) are neighbours of
the appellants. This fact has not been challenged by the appellants. Hari
Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15) deposed that there was sufficient light
in front of their house and they saw that the appellants Shiv Narayan,
Kanhaiyalal and Ramchandra were assaulting the deceased by wooden sticks.
Thereafter, the appellants tied the deceased with rope. They pushed and
dragged him. Even then their objection, the appellants inflicted blows to the
deceased. The deceased wanted to drink water but the appellants refused it.
Choukidar, Asharam came there and he also saw the incident upto arrival of
the police on the spot. The appellants were beating the deceased. Police
rescued the deceased and brought him to the police station. Thereafter,
Umrao Singh died.
Presence of Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15) near the
spot is unrebutted. Their version has been quite natural and also unrebutted.
Accused persons are known to them. It is not difficult to them to recognize
the appellants when they assaulted the deceased. Their testimony is wholly
reliable, which establish that the appellants knowingly caused fatal injuries to the deceased after detaining him. There is no conflict in ocular evidence or
medical evidence. The testimony of eyewitnesses is consistence on all
material of particulars is reliable.
Therefore, it is found that the finding of learned trial Court is
based on reliable evidence available on record. The appellants have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 342 and 304 part-II of
the IPC .
Dr. M.H. Ansari (PW-8) conducted the postmortem of the body of
the deceased Umrao Singh and he found the following injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wounds 3"x1/2"x 1/2" on right side of parietal temporal region with heavy bleeding,
(ii) both eyes were turned black,
(iii) one abrasion 2"x1/2" at right side of lip,
(iv) one abrasion 2 ?"x1" on left side of cheek,
(v) a contusion 5"x3" with bluish colour over right sholder
(vi) a lacerated wound 1"x1/2"x1/4" on left thumb and index finger,
(vii) nail of left middle finger was loose in condition with bleeding,
(viii) one contusion 4"x3" over right thigh in blackish blue colour,
(ix) a contusion 10"x5" over right thigh and hip,
(x) a contusion 8"x4" over left thigh backside,
(xi) a contusion 2"x1" over right thigh in front part of right thigh,
(xii) abrasion over 1"x1/2" over left knee,
(xiii) contusion over 3"x1" at left lumber region,
(xiv) so many contusions over back of the deceased in different sizes,
After the internal examination, doctor found haematoma over right side
of head about 3"x3" along with fracture at right parietal bone. Haematoma
about 3 ?"x 2 ?" at middle parietal region. Subdural haemorrhage over right
parietal brain, right occipital fossa was filled up with blood.
All the injuries were caused within 24 hours from the postmortem and
homicidal in nature. Cause of death is due to comma and injuries over vital
organs.
In the opinion of this Court, number of injuries and nature of
injuries also indicate that the deceased Umrao Singh was beaten by more
than one person and fatal injuries were caused by the appellants as stated by
Hari Narayan (PW-12) and Santosh (PW-15).
Dr. Ansari (PW-8) examined wooden sticks, which were seized
from the possession of appellants Shiv Narayan and Kanhaiyalal at articles
A,B,C,D and E. As per opinion of Dr. Ansari, the injuries of the deceased
Umrao Singh can be caused by wooden sticks.
On the above discussion, the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant is not found acceptable. There is sufficient evidence against the
appellants, which establish that due to love relations with Madhu daughter of
appellant Shiv Narayan, they wrongly detained Umrao Singh and knowingly
the appellants and other co-accused persons caused the fatal injuries to the
deceased, which were sufficient to cause his death. There is absence of kill,
accused persons had not used any sharp cutting weapon against Umrao
Singh. Act of the appellants is culpable homicidal not of the amounting to
murder, which fall under the provision of Section 304-II of the IPC.
"Roop Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P., 2017 Cri.L.J.
1487," it was held that:
"Direct evidence- Testimony of the witnesses is clear, cogent and trustworthy as to time, place, manner of committing crime and identification of accused. Prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against accused. Accused held guilty of offence."
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the
learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 304 part-II and 342 of the IPC . Therefore,
the appeal is dismissed.
At present, the appellants are on bail. They are directed to
surrender before the trial Court immediately to undergo the remaining
sentence. Their entire custody period during trial and appeal shall be adjusted
with the main sentence.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with the
record for information and an immediate compliance.