Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 980
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Honble Mr. A.K. Shrivastava and Smt. Sushma Shrivastava, JJ.
KASHI ALIAS KASHIRAM
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided On : Sep 15,2008
Aseem Dixit, Praveen Yadav,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborating evidence, especially in cases relying on sole eye-witness testimony, and the need for evidence regarding the source of light at the crime scene to support the identification of the accused.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Law - IPC Sections 302, 201 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the evidence presented, including the testimony of the sole eye-witness, the recovery of the weapon used in the crime, the lack of evidence regarding the source of light at the crime scene, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case. The court also referred to legal precedents regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony and the requirement for corroborating evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness who claimed to have seen the appellant committing the crime in the dark of night. The appellant appealed the judgment, arguing that the evidence was unreliable and the recovery of the weapon used in the crime was suspicious.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented, including the testimony of the sole eye-witness and the recovery of the weapon, was unreliable and suspicious. The court also noted the lack of evidence regarding the source of light at the crime scene, casting doubt on the identification of the appellant. The court referred to legal precedents and concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the sole eye-witness testimony, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of the weapon, and the lack of evidence regarding the source of light at the crime scene.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable and corroborating evidence, especially in cases relying on sole eye-witness testimony. The court also highlighted the requirement for evidence regarding the source of light at the crime scene to support the identification of the accused. The court referred to legal precedents to support its decision to give the appellant the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted the appellant from all charges, granting the appellant liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-3-1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in S. T. No. 8/99, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of life and 7 years respectively with further stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently, this appeal has been preferred by him under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973.
( 2. ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that earlier to the incident, appellant committed murder of the son of his uncle Ramkishan Yadav (P. W. 1), eventually he was tried and in Sessions Trial No. 75/83, he was convicted and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment on 31-7-1984. As per the case of prosecution, because father of the appellant Parasram (hereinafter to be referred as the deceased) did not help him in that case, hence, he was having annoyance against the deceased.
2. On 14-11-1998, Ramkishan Yadav was sleeping nearby the field of the deceased and during the late night in between 3-4 a. m. he saw appellant wielding blows by Sabbal (iron rod having flat end) to the deceased. On seeing the incident, said Ramkishan Yadav went to narrate the incident to his uncles son Chandi Prasad Yadav and both of them went to Birju to whom also the incident was narrated. The complainant along with these two persons again came to the place of occurrence and these persons saw that appellant was dragging the deceased towards the field of Saguyanai. On hearing the clack sound of foot steps of these persons, appellant by leaving the deceased at that place ran away carrying Sabbal with him. Complainant as well as the witnesses when saw the deceased, they found him seriously injured having umpteen injuries and was smeared with blood. He was dead.
( 3. ) COMPLAINANT Ramkishan Yadav again narrated the incident to chhuti Patel, Gotiram Yadav and Harinarayan Choubey, who advised complainant to lodge the report. Eventually, Ramkishan Yadav went to bandakpur Chowki and lodged the report (Exh. P-1) which was reduced in writing by R. S. Rajput.
( 4. ) ON lodging of FIR, the criminal law was triggered and set in motion. The investigating agency arrived at the spot; prepared Panchayatnama of the dead body; sent the dead body for the post-mortem; spot map was prepared; ordinary and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence was seized; bed sheet, towel etc. were also seized; recorded statement of the witnesses; arrested the appellant and on account of his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recovered the Sabbal which was used as weapon in the commission of offence from his house and sent the blood stained articles including the weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
( 5. ) AFTER the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of session where the appellant was tried.
( 6. ) THE learned Trial Court on the basis of the allegations made against the appellant in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Needless to emphasize, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
( 7. ) IN order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Exhibits P-1 to P-26, the documents on record. The defence of appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set forth in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. PC, but he did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence.
( 8. ) THE learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that the charges framed against the appellant are proved and eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence which we have already mentioned hereinabove. In this matter, the present appeal has been filed by appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
( 9. ) THE contention of Shri Praveen Yadav, learned Co
