Yogendra vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2003 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ashta, District Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 165/2002 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since in elaboration they are mentioned from paras 2 to 7 of the impugned judgment. For ready reference, it would be condign to mention here that on the point of carrying bullock cart from the bada of co-accused Bhairu Singh, hot altercations took place between the co-accused Bhairu Singh and Surendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) as a result of which their relations become strenuous and they were not in talking terms. In the afternoon, it is said that when the deceased Surendra Singh was going to his house, at that juncture he was stopped by the appellant as well as by acquitted co-accused Bhairu Singh and it was asked by the appellant that why he is carrying the bullock cart from the bada of Bhairu Singh upon which the deceased told that in future he will not carry the bullock cart from his bada. However, it is said that co-accused Bhairu Singh caught hold of the deceased while appellant dealt severe blows of gupti upon him resulting into his death.

The FIR was lodged by one Baje Singh (PW-1) who is an eye witness on the basis of which the criminal law was triggered and set in motion.

After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the trial court for trial. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charge punishable u/s 302 /34 IPC against both the appellants. Needless to say both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/24, the documents on record. The defence of the accused persons is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but they did not choose to examine any witness in support of their defence.

The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that charge u/s 302 /34 IPC is not proved against co-accused Bhairu Singh and eventually acquitted him from the said charge. The State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal and hence judgment passed against said Bhairu Singh has become final. However, learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and eventually passed the sentence to suffer life imprisonment.

In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

We have heard Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned public prosecutor for respondent/State at length. Having heard them, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

In the present case there are two eye witnesses to the incident, they are Baje Singh (PW-1) and Vishram Singh (PW-2). However, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of Vishram Singh (PW-2) as eye witness and in this regard our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant to para 44 of the impugned judgment. Thus, we are required to scan the testimony of Baje Singh (PW-1) only. On going through his testimony, we find that specifically he has deposed that both the accused persons are father and son. The appellant''s father is Bhairu Singh. It has come in the testimony of Baje Singh (PW-1) who is also the author of the FIR Ex. P/1 that on the point of some incident occurred in the afternoon in regard to carrying the bullock cart from the bada, it is said that both the accused persons were altercated with the deceased. Thereafter, it is said that co-accused Bhairu Singh caught hold the deceased while appellant dealt repeated blows of knife upon him. The factum of catching hold of the hands of the deceased by co-accused Bhairu Singh was not found to be proved by learned Trial Court and he was acquitted from the charge punishable u/s 302 /34 IPC. However, according to this witness the factum of giving blows of knife by the appellant has been emphatically proved. Indeed, this witness has also proved the FIR Ex. P/1 lodged by him in which he has stated that appellant has caused knife blows upon the deceased resulting into his death.

The statement of the eye witness Baje Singh (PW-1) is also corroborated by the medical evidence of Autopsy Surgeon Bharat Arya (PW-12) who has deposed that deceased has sustained as many as six stab wounds which may come from the gupti. The postmortem report of the deceased is Ex. P/18. We think it appropriate to quote the injuries which the deceased had sustained which are as under:--

(i) Stab wound on chest right side. Skin muscle and 4th rib cut obliquely from lower border to whole except upper 2 mm border remained. Lung corresponding to injury outer side 1" x 1/4" x lung deep;

(ii) Stab wound on chest right side 3" below right nipple and obliquely placed direction right to upward medial skin muscle and 8th rib cut 1" x 1/4" x lung deep;

(iii) Stab wound on chest right side and border of sternum 1" x 1/2" head deep;

(iv) incised wound one chest 3" below right nipple 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/2";

(v) stab wound on back at D-8 level left to right anteromedially right transverse process cut and wound reach to spinal cord right border size 3" x 1" x 1/4"; and

(vi) Stab wound on back at L3 level right upto abdomen cavity 1" x 1/2" x cavity deep;

Hence, according to us, the evidence of eye witness Baje Singh (PW-1) has been fully corroborated by the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon and also the postmortem report of the deceased, Ex. P/18. Since the blows were so brutal and forceful that both the lungs as well as heart of the deceased were pierced, hence according to us, the act of the appellant amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder and the learned trial court did not err in convicting the appellant for the charge punishable u/s 302 IPC.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.