Udal & Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants/accused challenging the judgment dated

25.4.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No. 271/2006 convicting them for the charge under Section 302/34 and 452 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short ''IPC'') and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life for the charge under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous

imprisonment for three years for the charge under Section 452 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for each offence with default stipulation.

The sentences are directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution story, as alleged, is that there was previous enmity between appellants and deceased. On 6.4.2006, at about 8.00 pm,

appellants Udal and Nandlal, respectively carrying katarna and axe chased the deceased, entered his house and assaulted him causing grievous

injuries. When Ruprani (PW)2), mother of deceased, tried to save the deceased, Nandlal pushed her down. Thereafter, several persons reached

on the spot then accused persons ran away from the spot, however, on the same day at about 11.30 pm Ruprani (PW-2) lodged the FIR Ex. P/2.

After recording the FIR, PW-10 N.S. Bais reached on the spot. He prepared panchnama of the dead body and recorded the statements of

various persons. Thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Dr. B.D. Kirar (PW-5) conducted the postmortem of the dead

body. As per the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was due to internal vascular haemorrhage, shock and comma and deceased died due to

internal excessive bleeding from the multiple bony injuries deep over scalp and fractures of right side humerus bone. Thereafter, the investigation

was completed by the investigating officer PW-10 N.S. Bais.

After completion of investigation challan was filed in the competent court. As the case was triable by the court of sessions, therefore, it was

committed to the court of sessions. The sessions court framed the charge against the appellants under Section 302/34 and 452 of the IPC

The accused persons abjured their guilt and took a defence of false implication on account of previous enmity and also on the pretext that the

deceased was a member of a dacoity gang i.e. Sarman Gang, however, who assaulted the deceased was not known to them.

The trial court relying upon the testimony of eyewitness Ruprani (PW-2) and medical evidence of Dr. B.D. Kirar (PW-5) and also the testimony

of other witnesses concluded that in the facts and circumstances of the case the charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC has been proved beyond

reasonable doubt by the prosecution, however, the trial court convicted and directed the appellants to undergo the imprisonment as described

hereinabove.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has strenuously urged that Udal has not assaulted on the vital part of the body of deceased,

therefore, it cannot be inferred that he was having any intention to commit murder of deceased. Similar is the argument so far as Nandlal is

concerned. In such circumstances, the conviction as directed by the trial court is unsustainable in law and is not in conformity with law.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the FIR was lodged immediately

after the incident by the mother of deceased Ruprani PW-2 who is the eyewitness of the incident. The allegation of causing injuries to deceased by

means of axe and katarna is corroborated by the medical evidence and the trial court relying upon the testimony of PW-2 Ruprani and medical

evidence has rightly convicted the appellants, however, the finding of conviction and sentence do not warrant any interference in this appeal.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Government Advocate and on perusal of the facts of the case it is apparent

that the incident took place on 6.4.2006 at about 8.00 pm to which the information was given to police immediately. Thereafter, at about 11.30

pm, on the same day, the FIR was lodged by Ruprani (PW-2) who is mother of deceased. On perusal of the FIR it is revealed that both the

appellants were present on the spot. They entered the house of deceased carrying axe and katarna and assaulted him causing grievous injuries. Dr.

B.D. Kirar PW-5 examined the injuries of deceased and opined that the said injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no intention to commit murder of deceased is of no substance

because looking to the cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution it is established beyond reasonable doubt that both the accused

persons entered the house of deceased carrying axe and katarna and assaulted him causing grievous injuries, which, as per the opinion of doctor,

were sufficient to cause his death, therefore, the said argument is repelled. The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nankaunoo vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh - (2016) 3 SCC 317 relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case because the facts of the said

case are different from the case in hand.

In view of the foregoing discussion and looking to the cogent evidence of eyewitness Ruprani (PW-2) supported by the medical evidence, in our

considered opinion, the finding of conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court do not warrant any interference in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellants being devoid of any merit it is hereby dismissed.