2000 (2) JLJ 168
(SUPREME COURT)
S. Saghir Ahmad and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Jagdish and Another, v. State of M.P.
Cr. Appeal Nos. 631 of 1998 and Cr. Appeal No. 80 of 1999:
against the judgment of M.P. High Court passed in Cr. Appeal Nos. 292 of
1983 and Cr. Appeal No. 124 of 1982: Decided on 5.5.2000.
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 60 and 45 -- eye witness father of deceased and also deep enmity existing between the families -- use of weapon by accused as stated by eye witness not supported by medical evidence -- witness not reliable. [Para 8
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- two versions of interested eye witness about presence of another witness -- different -- one version also against FIR and police statement -- this aspect also casts doubt about his evidence. [Para 9
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 45 and 138 -- doctor specifically denying axe injuries in cross-examination -- Court is not supposed to get clarification of any inconsistency between chief and cross-examination. [Para 10
(5) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 145, 138 and 45 -- doctor deposing injuries to have been caused by axe in chief examination -- contradicting the same in cross-examination -- Court is not supposed to get clarification of the elicited contradiction. [para 10
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- recovery witnesses same as stated to he present at scene of occurrence -- related to deceased -- non-availability of independent witnesses not established -- recoveries rightly not relied on. [Para 11
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 156 and 60 -- witness father or deceased -- firearm injury not corroborated by expert -- statement rightly rejected in absence of corroboration. [Para 12
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- murder -- farsa injuries inflicted only with the intention of causing death due to deep enmity -- offence made out. [Para 13
¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 rFkk 45 && vXU;k;q/k dk mi;ksx && fo‘ks"kK }kjk ‘kjhj esa 12 cksj dh canwd dh xksyh ikbZ xbZ && ekmtj jkbQy ds mi;ksx ds fy, ifjoknh] e`rd ds firk ds lh/ks ij fo‘okl ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 7À
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 rFkk 45 && izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh e`rd dk firk rFkk nksuksa ifjokjksa ds e/; xgjh ‘kq=rk Hkh izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh }kjk ;Fkk dfFkr vfHk;qDr }kjk vk;q/k dk mi;ksx fpfdRlh; lk{; }kjk lefFkZr ugha && lk{kh fo‘oluh; ughaA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 60 && ,d vU; izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh dh mifLFkfr ds ckjs esa fgrc) izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh ds nks o`Ùkkar && fHké fHké && ,d o`Ùkkar izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rFkk iqfyl dFku ds fo#) Hkh && bl igyw ls Hkh mlds lk{; ij lansg dh Nk;k iM+rh gSA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 45 rFkk 138 && izfrijh{kk esa MkDVj us dqYgkM+h dh {kfr;ksa dk fofufnZ"V% izR;k[;ku fd;k && U;k;ky; esa visf{kr ugha fd eq[; ijh{kk rFkk izfrijh{kk esa fdlh vlaxfr dk Li"Vhdj.k izkIr djsaA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼5½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 145] 138 rFkk 45 && MkDVj us eq[; ijh{kk esa vfHklk{; fn;k fd {kfr;k¡ dqYgkM+h }kjk dkfjr && izfrijh{kk esa mldk [kaMu fd;k && U;k;ky; ls vk‘kk ugha dh tkrh fd izkIr fd, x, [akMu dk Li"Vhdj.k izkIr djsaA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && cjkenxh lk{kh ogh ftudk ?kVuk LFky ij gksuk dfFkr && e`rd ds ukrsnkj && Loar= lk{khx.k dh vuqiyC/krk LFkkfir ugha && cjkenfx;ksa dk Bhd&gh voyac ugha fy;k x;kA ¿ iSjk 11À
¼7½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 156 rFkk 60 && lk{kh] e`rd dk firk && vXU;k;q/k dh {kfr fo‘ks"kK }kjk laiq"V ugha && laiqf"V dh vfo|ekurk esa dFku Bhd gh [kkfjtA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 && gR;k && xgjh ‘k=qrk ds dkj.k e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vk‘k; ls gh Qjls ls {kfr;k¡ igq¡pkbZ && vijk/k fl)A ¿ iSjk 13À
Rajendra Babu, J. -- 1. These two appeals arise out of common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in two criminal appeals. The prosecution case in this appeal as unfolded flounders on the bedrock of family feuds. bloodshed and murder. Angmrihai. daughter-in-law of Saligram [ PW 1] is stated to be living with Vidyaram [appellant No. 2] as his mistress. Therefore, it is alleged that PW 1 Saligram's family had enmity against all the accused. One Ramcharan, brother of accused Vidyaram is stated to have been murdered in which the complainant Saligram, his deceased son Bachchoo Lal, his nephew, Sultan Singh and his brother Adi Ram who are other witnesses in this case were accused and Vidyaram deposed in that case against them. Except for Bachchoolal, who was sentenced to life imprisonment, all the other accused were acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal the High court acquitted him also. It is stated that it is in this background that murder of Bachchoo Lal took place to avenge the death of Ramcharan.
2. On 12.5.1981 at about 11 a.m. PW 1 Saligram along with son Bachchoo Lal was proceeding on bicycle to village Hingawali to attend a feast in connection with marriage ceremony at Gangaram's residence. Bachchoo Lal was riding the cycle with his father Saligram also perching thereon. When they reached the road connecting village Navali and Laljit Ka Pura, they got down, as there was sand on the road. Bachchoo Lal was pushing the cycle while Saligram was coming behind him about 30-40 paces away. accused Jagdish armed with 12 bore Kaua (country made pistol) and axe and Vidyaram with a Mauser gun and Uuam nephew of Vidyaram's sister son was armed with 'Farsa'. Jagdish fired at Bachchoo Lal with 12 bore Katta which hit him on the left thigh then Uttam gave him 'Farsa' blow on his head. Jagdish fired second time with katta and Vidyaram also fired with his Mauser gun. Bachchoo Lal became injured and fell down on the ground. PW 1 Saligram raised a loud cry in panic that his son has been murdered. Then Vidyaram ran towards him with the gun but he somehow escaped and ran back 10 paces behind. From there he saw that all the three accused attacked Bachchoo Lal with 'Farsa' and axe and when Bachchoo Lal died, they ran away towards Geelapura. PW 1 went near Bachchoo Lal and found that he had succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station Ambah and lodged a complaint which was registered at 1.30 p.m. by PW 10 Jaikaran Singh who proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared a Panchnama, recovered blood stained earth, a six inch long handle of the axe (Article 7) from the spot and an empty cartridge of 12 bore gun and an empty round of 315 bore (Article 14) and prepared appropriate memo. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination on 13.5.1981. The Doctor conducted autopsy on the body and found as many as 15 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. On 9.6.1981 accused Jagdish and Vidyaram were arrested by PW 9 Ram Sunder Tiwari and at his instance blood stained axe (Article 9) was recovered from his house and it was sent for chemical examination which, however, proved that it did not contain any blood stains. Vidyaram made a disclosure about a licence of Mauser gun (Article 12) and missed cartridge and licence of the Mauser gun and produced it before the Policeman Babu Singh, who was not examined before trial Court and Ram Gopal denied having seen anything produced by Vidyaram in the Police Station. All the three accused were charge sheeted under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were tried by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that the witnesses have given false evidence because of their enmity with Vidyaram and further pleaded that they were away to attend the marriage of their relative at village Mahawakepura in U.P., were not present at the time of the occurrence and are falsely implicated. The tri
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.