Back
2007(5) Supreme 575
Supreme Court of India
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh— Appellant
versus
Chamru @ Bhagwandas etc. etc — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 743-744 of 2002
Decided on : 19-06-2007
Facts of the case :
Accused persons two in number herein in the instant case were prosecuted for committing gruesome murder of four members of a family one by one by hacking them while they were sleeping in their courtyard. Prosecution case that two of deceased were minors. Trial Court while awarding death penalty to A1 for quadruple murders, awarded life imprisonment to A2. On an appeal against conviction, High Court accorded acquittal on ground that prosecution version was not found cogent and credible.
Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Finding of the Court :
The Court held that Trial Court had recorded conviction on basis of identification of A1 in TIP by prosecution witnesses Pw3, Pw7, Pw8. However since accused was shown to witnesses before T.I. parade and this was accepted by witnesses. Hence held that TIP proceedings held by PW1 were only a farce. Both PW 7 and PW8 admitted in cross examination that police had shown them photograph of A1. Hence it rendered entire proceedings as useless. Evidence of PW8 that she had dodged assailant and escaped into kitchen and seen assault form her place of hiding. It was difficult to believe that she had recognized assailant to be A1. If PW8 had really recognized A1 at night of occurrence, she would not have told village Patel that some stranger had attacked deceased persons. Even though evidence of Prosecution witnesses that A1 was well known to them by face as he had worked for their father. However no explanation was put forth as to what prevented prosecution witnesses from disclosing his identity to witnesses and police when they arrived at spot. Even though there was cold blooded murder of four persons including two children, but deficient manner in which investigation was carried out, left much to be desired. Perusal of evidence of PW3 in Court showed that she was not a credible witness and was tutored. As per evidence of PW3, PW8 was assaulted by assailants. However said deposition was clearly contrary to prosecution version. Impugned judgment of acquittal passed by High Court does not suffer from infirmity so as to warrant interference.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Important point
Where accused was shown to witnesses before T.I. parade and this was accepted by witnesses, then TIP proceedings held by investigating officer were held to be a farce.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondents. The Trial Court had found the accused Chamru guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’). He was awarded death penalty for the quadruple murders. Accused Geetabai was awarded life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC along with sentence of fine. They were both sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment on the other two heads of charge along with various sums of fine. Both accused challenged their conviction and sentence and filed appeals. The Trial Court made a reference to Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court found the prosecution version to be not cogent and credible and directed acquittal. It may be noted that there was a gruesome murder of four persons. Two of them were minors. Though the High Court was conscious of this fact, yet, it found the evidence of the witnesses to be not credible and cogent and, patently unreliable and, therefore, directed acquittal.
2.The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows :
“Sometime prior to this incident, deceased Ramkishan and his wife deceased Anita were given three acres of land by the latter’s father Sevaklal (PW-5). Since then Ramkishan lived in the farmhouse along with his wife and four minor children, namely, eldest son Kapil, aged about 12 years, daughter Keerti, Son Bantu and the youngest child Preeti, aged about 7 years. This land was earlier cultivated by Gendalal, the father-in-law of Sevaklal (P.W.5) and after the death of Gendalal, his sons Mangdu and his wife accused Geetabai continued in possession. These fields were later taken back from Mangdu by Sevaklal and out of it, 3 acres were given to his daughter deceased Anita and one acre was given to Gendalal’s widow, who sold it off for her daughter’s marriage. This had enraged Geetabai and her husband who used to abuse Anita and her husband Ramkishan. After her husband’s death Geetabai had developed friendly relations with accused Chamru, and the two of them perpetrated this dastardly crime in furtherance of their common intention.”
3.Both accused Chamru and Geetabai went to the house of Ramkishan at the dead of night and Chamru hacked Ramkishan, his wife and children one by one while they were sleeping in their courtyard. Two of the children namely, Keerti (P.W.3) and Bantu (P.W.7) were badly injured, but they could be saved after prolonged hospitalisation. These two children, and Ramkishan’s niece Indu Patel (PW-8) who was on a visit to his place, are said to have witnessed the crime.
4.The first information report (Ex.P-4) was lodged next morning by village Patel Bhupatsingh (P.W.2). This set the investigation in motion. Dr. A.K. Yadu (P.W.9) performed the autopsy and Ex.P/17-A to Ex.P-20-A are the postmortem reports. He testified that all these persons died a homicidal death.
5.On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the accused faced trial. The Trial Court placed reliance on the identification made by Keerti, PW-3, Bantu, PW-7 and Indu, PW-8 for the purpose of recording conviction. All the three were child witnesses. It was claimed by the prosecution at the Test Identification Parade (in short ‘the T.I. Parade’) that they had identified the accused Chamru. Finding their evidence to be cogent and credible, the Trial Court recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused, as noted above.
6.In support of the appeal before the High Court, it was highlighted by learned counsel appearing for the accused persons that the Test Identification Parade was nothing but a farce. The accused was shown to the witnesses before the T.I. Parade and this was accepted by the witnesses. Addit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
