Back
2006(3) JLJ 228
Miss Sheela Khanna and S.A. Naqvi, JJ.
Baijnath Singh and another v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 1995 : against the judgment of
Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Guna, passed in
Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1994;
Decided on 12.7.2006.
Prosecution case in brief is that on 20.9.1993 Patiram had gone to market at Bahadurpur at about 4 p.m. with appellants Baijnathsingh and Badalsingh. He did not return home in the night. Kalector Singh (PW2) resident of village Jhagar Bamuria informed Chandan Singh (PW 1) that Patiram would return after sometime. In the same night at 8:00 p.m. appellant-accused Badalsingh returned home and informed Chandan Singh (PW 1) and villagers that Patiram had stayed at the house of Pratapsingh in village Sumer. But Patiram did not return till next day. Patiram‘s son Chandan Singh (PW1), Narainsingh (PW3), Kalector Singh (PW2), Santosh Singh and other villagers went out in search of Patiram. In the evening, they found two pairs of shoes and one pair of sandale by the river side. Out of these shoes, one pair of shoes belongs to Patiram and it is alleged that rest belong to appellants Baijnath and Badalsingh. According to the prosecution, on 22.9.1993, dead body of Patiram was found in the river. [Para 3
Held : Dr. C.P. Tiwari deposed that he was sure that death of Patiram was not due to drowning, so it was not necessary to conduct diatom test for that purpose. In our considered opinion, Dr. C.P. Tiwari‘s evidence is not sufficient to prove that the death of Patiram was homicidal or unnatural. Injuries found on patella and left upper arm of Patiram are simple in nature and they are not sufficient to cause death of Patiram in ordinary course of nature. These injuries may be caused due to fall on the ground or due to friction with rough object or surface. Learned trial Court committed error in holding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Patiram was homicidal which cannot be affirmed. Prosecution has failed to prove by cogent evidence that the death of Patiram was homicidal. [Para 15
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 161 and 164 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.60 -- alleged eye-witnesses denying their testimonies recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 -- declared hostile and cross-examined by prosecution n incident not substantiated -- evidence rightly rejected. [Para 12
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 8 and 3 -- case of circumstantial evidence -- previous enmity between deceased and accused subsided after compromise -- parties were on talking terms -- deceased went willingly with accused -- grave enmity and motive not proved. [Para 18
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.3 -- circumstance of fast seen together -- witness examined after 13 days without explanation of delay -- did not reveal the fact to anyone despite knowing that deceased is missing -- evidence not reliable. [Para 21
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.3 -- circumstance of last seen together -- witness not natural -- disclosing fact of seeing together to none, even to police -- examined after one month -- cannot be relied upon. [Para 22
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss.155 and 154 -- witness not declared hostile -- his evidence is binding upon prosecution. [Para 23
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.3 -- prosecution evidence itself establishing the fact of deceased being all alone -- theory of last seen together demolished. [Para 25
(8) Documents -- not legally proved by prosecution -- cannot be used against accused persons. [Para 27
(9) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.60 -- person informing quarrel between deceased and accused persons not examined -- statement of person informed about the quarrel not admissible. [Para 28
(10) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.302/34 -- case based on circumstantial evidence -- chain not complete -- circumstance of last seen together not sufficient to record conviction. 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1551 followed. [Para 29
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 lgifBr /kkjk 34 && gR;k && e`R;q dk ekuo o/k ;k vizkd`frd gksuk lkfcr ugha && vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dks xaHkhj {kfr igq¡prh gSA vfHk;kstu i{kdFku la{ksi esa ;g gS fd 20-9-1993 dks ikrhjke vijkg~u yxHkx 4 cts vihykFkhZx.k cStukFkflag vkSj cknyflag ds lkFk cgknqjiqj ds cktkj x;k FkkA og jkf= esa ?kj ugha ykSVkA xzke >kxj ckeqfj;k ds fuoklh dysDVjflag ¼v lk 2½ us panuflag ¼v lk 2½ dks lwpuk nh fd ikrhjke dqN le; i‘pkr~ ykSVsxkA mlh jkf= dks vijkg~u yxHkx 8 cts vihykFkhZ&vfHkqDr cknyflag ?kj ykSVk rFkk panuflag ¼v lk 1½ vkSj xzkeokfl;ksa dks crk;k fd ikrhjke xzke lqesj esa izrkiflag ds ?kj :d x;k FkkA ijarq ikrhjke vxys fnu rd ugha ykSVkA ikrhjke dk iq= panuflag ¼v lk 1½] ukjk;.kflag ¼v lk 3½] dysDVjflag ¼v lk 2½] larks‘kflag vkSj vU; xzkeoklh ikrhjke dh ryk‘k esa fudysA la/;k dks mUgsa unh ds fdukjs nks tksM+h twrs vkSj ,d tksM+h lSaMy feysA bu twrksa esa ls ,d tksM+h twrs ikrhjke ds Fks rFkk vfHkdfFkr gS fd ‘ks"k vihykFkhZ cStukFk vkSj cknyflag ds FksA vfHk;kstu i{k ds vuqlkj 22-9-1993 dks ikrhjke dk ‘ko unh esa feykA ¼iSjk 3 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Mk- lh-ih- frokjh us vfHklk{; fn;k fd mUgsa fo‘okl Fkk fd ikrhjke dh e`R;q Mwcus ds dkj.k ugha gqbZ Fkh blfy, ml iz;kstu ds fy, Mk;Ve ijh{k.k djuk vko‘;d ugha FkkA gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa Mk- lh-ih- frokjh dk lk{; ;g lkfcr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gS fd ikrhjke dh e`R;q ekuo o/k Fkh ;k vizkd`frd FkhA ikrhjke dh tkuqdk vkSj ck,¡ Åijh ckgq ij ikbZ xbZ {kfr;k¡ Hkwfe ij fxjus ds dkj.k ;k [kqjnqjh oLrq vFkok lrg ls ?k‘kZ.k ds dkj.k dkfjr gks ldrh gSaA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr dj xyrh dh gS fd vfHk;kstui{k us ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr dj fn;k fd ikrhjke dh e`R;q ekuo o/k Fkh] ftldh vfHkiqf"V ugha dh tk ldrhA vfHk;kstui{k rdZiw.kZ lk[; ls ;g lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk gS fd ikrhjke dh e`R;q ekuo o/k FkhA ¼iSjk 15 ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 161 rFkk 164 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && vfHkdfFkr izR;{kn‘khZ lk{khx.k us /kkjk 161 vkSj 164 ds v/khu vfHkfyf[kr vius ifjlk{; dk izR;[;ku fd;k && vfHk;kstui{k }kjk i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr vkSj izfrijhf{kr && ?kVuk fl) ugha gqbZ && lk{; Bhd&gh vLohdkj fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 12 ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 8 rFkk 3 && ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; dk ekeyk && e`rd vkSj vfHk;qDrksa ds e/; iwoZrj ‘k=qrk le>kSrs ds i‘pkr~ de gks xbZ && nksuksa i{kksa esa cksypky Fkk && e`rd viuh bPNk ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk x;k && ?kksj ‘k=qrk vkSj gsrq lkfcr ughaA ¼iSjk 18 ¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 3 && vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dh ifjfLFkfr && lk{kh dh ijh{kk 13 fnu i‘pkr~] foyac ds Li"Vhdj.k ds fcuk dh xbZ && e`rd ykirk gS ;g tkuus ds ckotwn fdlh dks Hkh lkFk ns[kus dk rF; ugha crk;k && lk{; voyacuh; ughaA ¼iSjk 21 ¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 3 && vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dh ifjfLFkfr && lk{kh LokHkkfod ugha && lkFk ns[kus dk rF; fdlh dks ugha crk;k] iqfyl dks Hkh ugha && ijh{kk ,d ekl i‘pkr~ dh xbZ && voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 22 ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 155 rFkk 154 && lk{kh i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k x;k && mldk lk{; vfHk;kstui{k ds fy, vkc)dj gSA ¼iSjk 23 ¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 3 && Lo;a vfHk;kstui{k ds lk{; ls e`rd ds fcYdqy vdsys gksus dk rF; LFkkfir && vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dh ifjdYiuk /oLrA ¼iSjk 25 ¼8½ nLrkost && vfHk;kstui{k }kjk oS/k :i ls lkfcr ugha && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa }kjk mi;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 27 ¼9½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && e`rd vkSj vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds e/; >xM+s dh bfÙkyk nsus okys O;fDr dh ijh{kk ugha dh xbZ && ftl O;fDr dks >xM+s dh bfÙkyk nh xbZ mldk dFku xzkg~; ughaA ¼iSjk 28 ¼10½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302@34 && ekeyk ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr && J`a[kyk iw.kZ ugha && vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dh ifjfLFkfr nks"kflf) vfHkfyf[kr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ughaA 1994 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 1551 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 29
Naqvi, J. -- 1. Appellants preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 6.4.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Sessions Trial No. 78/94, whereby convicted the appellants Baijnath Singh, Badalsingh and Lakhansingh under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default two months' SI.
2. During the pendency of this criminal appeal appellant No.3 Lakhansingh expired and on 7.1.2004 his name was deleted from the array of appellants by the order of the Court.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 20.9.1993 Patiram had gone to market at Bahadurpur at about 4 p.m. with appellants Baijnathsingh and Badalsingh. He did not return home in the night. Kalector Singh (PW2) resident of village Jhagar Bamuria informed Chandan Singh (PW 1) that Patiram would return after sometime. In the same night at 8.00 p.m. appellant-accused Badalsingh returned home and informed Chandan Singh (PW 1) and villagers that Patiram had stayed at the house of Pratapsingh in village Sumer. But Patiram did not return till next day. Patiram's son Chandan Singh (PW1), Narainsingh (PW3), Kalector Singh (PW2), Santosh Singh and other villagers went out in search of Patiram. In the evening, they found two pairs of shoes and one pair of sandale by the river side. Out of these shoes, one pair of shoes belongs to Patiram and it is alleged that rest belong to appellants Baijnath and Badalsingh. According to the prosecution, on 22.9.1993, dead body of Patiram was found in the river. Then Chandan Singh lodged a report (Ex.P-1), upon which crime under section 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC has been registered. First Information Report is Ex.P-19.
4. On 22.9.1993 Panchayatnama Lash (Ex.P-6) has been prepared. On the same day, one pair of sandal, one shoe of right foot and one shoe of left foot have been seized from Natthu Singh as per Ex.P-7. Spot Map (Ex.P-14) was prepared on the same day. Appellants-accused Badalsingh, Baijnath Singh and Lakhan were arrested on 30.9.1993 as per arrest memo Ex.P-27, EX.P-26 and Ex.P-28, respectively. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 CrPC.
5. On 22.9.1993 Dr. C.P. Tiwari conducted postmortem of dead body of Patiram and found as per Ex.P-10, Dr. C.P. Tiwari preserved Viscera of deceased along with solution and it was seized by police as per Ex.P-18 on 22.9.1993. Viscera was sent for chemical examination to FSI, Sagar as per report Ex.P-30. No chemical poison was found on the viscera of deceased. Statement of Baldevsingh and Badalsingh was recorded under section 164 of CrPC. As per prosecution Baldevsingh and Badal Singh saw appellants throwing Patiram in river. They are said to be eye-witness.
6. After completion of trial, charge-sheet under sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC has been filed. Then case was committed to the Sessions.
7. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 302 and 302 read with 34 of IPC. Appellants/accused persons abjured the guilt. They pleaded innocence. Their defence was that they were falsely implicated.
8. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses. After completion of trial and hearing both the parties, learned trial Court convicted appellants Baijnath Singh and Badalsingh and Lakhansingh under section 302 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them aforementioned.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants preferred this appeal alleging that learned trial Court erred in relying on the prosecution evidence and convicting the appellants ignoring the basic approach in cases based on circumstantial evidence that conviction can be recorded only when all circumstances are positively established leading to the only conclusion that the accused persons are guilty. There is no evidence to prove that death of Patiram was homicidal. There is no evidence against the appellants. Learned trial Court committed illegality in passing the judgment of conviction. There are material
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
