Back
1990 Supreme(MP) 384
Shacheendra Dwivedi, T Singh J.
Chhakki S/O Ramnath
vs
State Of Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : 24 September, 1990
The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence, the impact of medical evidence on witness testimony, and the significance of compliance with procedural requirements in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction Under Section 302/34 - [Ocular evidence, medical evidence, time of death, conduct of witnesses] - [Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the reliance on ocular evidence, contradictions with medical evidence, time of death, absence of blood at the scene, conduct of witnesses, and non-compliance with Section 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence, the impact of medical evidence on witness testimony, and the significance of compliance with procedural requirements in criminal cases.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with two others, were involved in the assault and killing of two individuals. The case relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and contradictory, particularly in relation to medical evidence, time of death, absence of blood at the scene, and conduct of witnesses. The court also noted non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, contradictions with medical evidence, time of death, absence of blood at the scene, conduct of witnesses, and compliance with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need for corroborative evidence, the impact of medical evidence on witness testimony, and the significance of compliance with procedural requirements in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
1. By this judgment both the appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 319/83 and Criminal Appeal No. 320/83), challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, in Session Trial No. 27/82, dated 29-10-1983, whereby appellant Chhakki of Criminal Appeal No. 319/83 and appellant Lalai of Criminal Appeal No. 320/83 have been convicted Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life, are being disposed of.
2. According to the First Information Report (Ex.P.8), lodged by Ramshree (P.W.7), on 5-12-1981, at Police Station, Indergarh, in village Ekona, in the night of 4-12-1981, at about 8-9 P.M., Lokman, the deceased, went to the house of Balle (P.W.9), as they were sharing the agriculture, for taking money and for saying about diesal. After some time, shouts were heard, "DODIO RE MAR DARO BACHA OO"; and on hearing the shouts, Jagman went to the house of Balle (P.W.9). Ramshree (P.W.7) also followed Jagman and saw that, inside the Pour of Balle (P.W.9), Marpit of Lokman and Jagman, deceased persons, was done by four accused persons, viz., Lalai, Chhakki, Chhinga and Ramsewak. Chhakki was assaulting by Basula and Lalai by Kulhadi, Ramsewak and Chhinga had Lathis and both were causing marpit by Lathis. According to Ramshree, she herself, the daughter and wife of Balle, shouted for help but nobody paid any heed and all th5 four accused persons killed Lokman and Jagman and dragged the bodies from inside the Paur and threw them in the lane. Thereafter, Ramshree (P.W.7) went back to her house and remained there, the whole night. In the morning, she went to her brother-in-law, Dayaram (P.W.6) son of deceased Lokman, stated the incident to him and thereafter accompanied by him, lodged the report (Ex.P.-8) at P. S., Indergarh.
3. After investigation, all the four accused persons were challaned and tried for the offence Under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court, disbelieving the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the two co-accused persons, viz. Chhinga and Ramsewak, giving them the benefit of doubt, but the appellants, on the basis of the same evidence, have been convicted and they have preferred these two separate appeals.
4. The prosecution case rests on the ocular evidence and particularly on the testimony of four eye-witnesses, viz., Dropadi, wife of Balle, (P.W.4), Swarupi d/o Balle (P.W.5), Ramshree (P.W.7) and Balle (P.W.9).
5. Dropadi (P.W.4) has stated that Lokman, the deceased, and Balle had partnership in the agriculture and Lokman reached the house of Balle (P.W.9) for asking money and also diesel. At that time, Balle (P.W.7) was taking his food and she was cooking and serving him. When Balle (P.W.9) came to his Pour and was sitting with Lokman, the two appellants came there and Lalai asked Balle (P.W.9), "why have you not prepared the AANKURI?" to which he replied, "I am making it". On this, the appellant Chhakki tried to cause marpit of Balle. The other two co-accused persons also arrived there. Balle ran away from the house. Thereafter, all the four accused persons caused marpit of Lokman. She shouted for help and so also her daughter Swarupui. Lokman, who was being assaulted, also shouted for help. Thereafter, Jagman, his son, came in the Pour but he was also beaten by the four accused persons. Killing the two their bodies were dragged from the Pour and were thrown in the lane by the accused persons and thereafter all the four accused persons ran away from the spot. According to this witness Dropadi, there were 100-150 injuries on the body of Lokman and so also Jagman was badly injured. The deceased persons had injuries on ribs, head, both cheeks, back, stomach, hands and legs. She remained in the house and did not narrate the incident to anyone.
6.The other witness Swarupi, who is daughter of Dropadi, also stated that all the four accused persons caused marpit of the deceased. She has given omnibus statement and has specified only one injury on Jag
