Back
2012 Supreme(MP) 295
2012(3) JLJ 1
(SUPREME COURT)
Swatanter Kumar and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
Atmaram v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.2003 of 2008 : against the judgment and order of High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore in
Criminal Appeal No.783 of 1999; Decided on 10.5.2012.
K.B. Sinha with Niraj Sharma, Vikrant Singh Bais and
Sumit Kumar Sharma for appellants;
Ms. Praveena Gautam and C.D. Singh for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Evidence -- principle of criminal jurisprudence -- every statement of witness -- must be examined in its entirety -- merely by reading one sentence -- Court may not rely or reject entire statement.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that there are serious contradictions between the statements of PW1 and PW2. These two witnesses being the eye-witnesses, such serious contradictions in their statements make the conviction of the appellants unsustainable on that basis.
Held : These are two eye-witnesses who themselves were injured by the accused. Every variation is incapable of being termed as a serious contradiction that may prove fatal to the case of prosecution. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that every statement of the witness must be examined in its entirety and the Court may not rely or reject the entire statement of a witness merely by reading one sentence from the deposition in isolation and out of context. In the present case, it has been completely established that both PW1 and PW2 are injured eye-witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.
It is clear that every variation or discrepancy in the statement of witness cannot belie the case of the prosecution per se. It is true that in the present case, some other witnesses have turned hostile and have not fully supported the case of the prosecution, but that by itself would not be a circumstance for the Court to reject the statements of PW1 and PW2, who are reliable and worthy of credence and more particularly, when their presence at the place of occurrence has been established beyond reasonable doubt. (2010)12 SCC 350 relied on.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.300, 302, 304 Part II, 147, 148 and 149 -- offences under -- murder -- intention of accused to kill deceased established -- because deceased and his brother burnt crop of soyabean of accused -- injuries caused to deceased and eye-witnesses PW1 and PW2 by farsi, dhariya and lathis -- death caused to deceased by the injuries -- offence proved by evidence of eye-witnesses, post-mortem report and medical evidence -- offence is of culpable homicide amount to murder -- all accused are liable to be convicted -- offence not altered under section 304 Part II or 326 from section 302.
The contention lastly raised on behalf of the appellants is that no single injury has been found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as per the medical evidence. There was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased. At best, they have only caused an injury which was likely to cause death. Therefore, no case for an offence under section 302 IPC is made out and, at best, it could be a case under section 304 Part II and/or even section 326 IPC.
Held : If there is an intention to kill and with that intent, injury is caused which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the offence would clearly fall within the ambit of para thirdly of section 300 IPC and, therefore, would be culpable homicide amounting to murder. In the present case, the intention on the part of the accused persons to kill Gokul was manifest as is evident from the statements of PW1 and PW2. The cause for having such an intent is also proved by the prosecution that according to the accused, Gokul and PW1 had burnt their soyabean crops.The manner in which all the accused assaulted the deceased even after he fell to the ground and the act of continuously inflicting blows on the body of the deceased, clearly shows that they had a pre-determined mind to kill the deceased at any cost, which they did.
[Para 19
They even caused injuries to the vital parts of the body of the deceased, i.e., the skull. As per the medical evidence, there was incised wound of 5-1/2" x skull thick on left skull region, which shows the brutality with which the said head injury was caused to the deceased.
For these reasons, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants that this is a case where the Court should exercise its discretion to alter the offence to one under section 304 Part II or section 326 IPC from that under section 302 IPC.We also find the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to be without merit that accused Gokul alone is liable to be convicted, if at all, under section 302 IPC and all other accused should be acquitted. We reject this contention in light of the discussion above and the fact that all these accused have been specifically implicated by PW1 and PW2, the Investigating Officer, PW26 and the medical evidence. 2012(4) Scale 526 relied on. (1976)4 SCC 362, 1988 (Suppl.) SSC 456 discussed. AIR 1996 SC 148 referred to.
¼1½ lk{; && vkijkf/kd fof/k‘kkL= dk fl)kar && lk{kh dk izR;sd dFku && bldh laiw.kZrk esa ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, && dsoy ,d okD; i<+dj && U;k;ky; ml ij fo‘okl vFkok laiw.kZ dFku vLohdkj ugha dj ldrkA
vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku dkmUlsy }kjk rdZ fd;k x;k fd v lk 1 rFkk v lk 2 ds dFkuksa esa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gSA ;s nks lk{kh izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh gksus ls] muds dFkuksa esa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gksus ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZx.k ds fo:) nks"kflf) fLFkj j[ks tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;s nks izR;{kn‘khZ lk{kh gSa tks Lo;a vfHk;qDr }kjk pksfVy gSaA izR;sd fHkUurk xaHkhj fojks/kkHkkl gksuk Lohdkj djus ds fy, v{ke gS tks vfHk;kstu ds izdj.k dks lkfcr djus esa ?kkrd gks ldrh gSA vkijkf/kd fof/k‘kkL= dk ;g lqfuf‘pr fl)kar gS fd lk{kh ds izR;sd dFku dk bldh laiw.kZrk esa ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, rFkk U;k;ky; vfHklk{; ls ,dkadhiu esa lk{kh ds dFku dk dsoy ,d okD; i<+dj rFkk lanHkZ ls ijs ml ij fo‘okl ;k laiw.kZ dFku dks vLohdkj ugha dj ldrkA bl izdj.k esa] iw.kZr;k fl) fd;k x;k gS fd nksuksa izR;{kn‘khZ&lk{kh v lk 1 rFkk v lk 2 pksfVy gSa rFkk ?kVuk LFky ij mudh mifLFkfr ds fo"k; esa lansg ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
;g Li"V gS fd lk{kh ds dFku esa izR;sd fHkUurk ;k folaxfr vfHk;kstu ds izdj.k dks LoHkkor% vlR; ugha cuk ldrkA ;g lR; gS fd bl izdj.k esa] dqN lk{kh i{knzksgh gks x, rFkk vfHk;kstu ds izdj.k dk iw.kZr;k leFkZu ugha fd;k gS] fdarq U;k;ky; dks dsoy ;g vius vki esa v lk 1 rFkk v lk 2 ds dFkuksa dks vLohdkj djus dk rF; ugha gksxk] tks fo‘oluh; rFkk fo‘okl ds ;ksX; gSa rFkk vkSj fo‘ks"kr%] tc ?kVuk LFky ij mudh mifLFkfr leqfpr lansg ls ijs fl) dh xbZ gSA ¼2010½12 ,l lh lh 350 voyafcrA
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 300] 302] 304 Hkkx nks] 147] 148 rFkk 149 && mica/kksa ds v/khu vijk/k && gR;k && e`rd dks ekjus dk vfHk;qDrksa dk vk‘k; gksuk lkfcr fd;k x;k && D;ksafd e`rd rFkk mlds HkkbZ us vfHk;qDrksa dks lks;kchu dh Qly tyk nh Fkh && e`rd rFkk izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa v lk 1 rFkk v lk 2 dks Qjlh] /kkfj;k rFkk ykfB;ksa ls pksVsa dh xbZa && pksVksa ls e`rd dh e`R;q gqbZ && vijk/k izR;{kn‘khZ lkf{k;ksa dh lk{;] ‘ko&ijh{kk izfrosnu rFkk fpfdRlh; lk{; }kjk lkfcr && leLr vfHk;qDr nks"kflf) ;ksX; gSa && vijk/k /kkjk 302 ls /kkjk 304 Hkkx nks ;k /kkjk 326 ds v/khu ifjofrZr ugha fd;k x;kA
vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls vafre rdZ fd;k x;k fd fpfdRlh; lk{; ,d Hkh pksV lk/kkj.k Øe ds LoHkko esa ekj Mkyus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha ikbZ xbZ gSA vfHk;qDrx.k dk e`rd dks ekj Mkyus dk vk‘k; ugha FkkA vf/kd ls vf/kd] mUgksaus dsoy pksV igq¡pkbZ gS ftlds dkj.k e`rd dh e`R;q gqbZ gSA blfy, Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu dksbZ izdj.k ugha curk] vf/kd ls vf/kd] ;g izdj.k Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 304 Hkxk nks ;k@vkSj /kkjk 326 ds v/khu gks ldrk FkkA
¼iSjk 18
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn ekj Mkyus dk vk‘k; gS rFkk ml vk‘kl ls] pksV igq¡pkbZ tkrh gS tks izd`fr ds ekewyh Øe esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr gS] rc vijk/k Li"Vr% Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 300 ds r`rh; iSjk dh lhek ds Hkhrj vk,xk rFkk] blfy,] gR;k dh dksfV esa vkus okyk ekuo o/k gksxkA bl izdj.k esa] xksdqy dks ekj Mkyus dk vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dk lqLi"V vk‘k; Fkk tSlk fd v lk 1 rFkk v lk 2 ds dFkuksa ls izdV gSA ,slk vk‘k; j[kus dk okngsrqd Hkh vfHk;kstu }kjk lkfcr fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDrksa ds vuqlkj xksdqy rFkk v lk 1 us mudh lks;kchu dh Qly tykbZ FkhA bl dkj.k ls leLr vfHk;qDrksa us e`rd ij geyk fd;k ftlls og tehu ij fxj iM+k rFkk e`rd ds ‘kjhj ij fujarj izgkj djrs jgs] ;g Li"Vr% n‘kkZrk gS fd os fdlh Hkh dher ij e`rd dks ekj Mkyus dh iwoZ n`<+ fu‘p; dh eukso`fÙk j[krs Fks] tks mUgksaus fd;kA
tSlk fd mUgksaus e`rd ds ‘kjhj ds eeZLFkku ij pksVsa igq¡pkbZ gSa] vFkkZr~ [kksiM+h ijA fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vuqlkj [kksiM+h esa 5&1@2** xgjk ?kko [kksiM+h ds ck;sa rjQ Fkk] tks n‘kkZrh gS fd e`rd dks mi;qZDr flj esa pksV ik‘kfodrk ds lkFk igq¡pkbZ FkhA
bu dkj.kksa ls ge vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls fd;k x;k ;g rdZ Lohdkj djus esa vleFkZ gSa fd ;g ,d ,slk izdj.k gS tgk¡ U;k;ky; dks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 302 ls vijk/k dks Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 304 Hkkx nks ;k /kkjk 326 ds v/khu ifjofrZr djus ds fy, vius foosd dk iz;ksx djuk pkfg,A ge vihykFkhZx.k ds fo}ku dkmUlsy ds bl rdZ dks Hkh xq.kkxq.k jfgr ikrs gSa fd vdsyk xksdqy Hkk-na-la- dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu nks"kfl) fd, tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk leLr vfHk;qDr nks"keqDr fd, tkuk pkfg,A mi;qZDr foospuk ds izdk‘k esa ge ;g rdZ vLohdkj djrs gSa rFkk okLrfodrk ;g gS fd ;s leLr vfHk;qDr fo‘ks"k :i ls v lk 1 rFkk v lk 2] vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh] v lk 26 rFkk fpfdRlh; lk{; }kjk vkfyIr fd, x, gSaA 2012¼4½ Ldsy 526 voyafcrA ¼1976½4 ,l lh lh 362] 1988 ¼lIyh-½ ,l lh lh 456 foosfprA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 148 fufnZ"VA
Swatanter Kumar, J. -- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore dated 23rd January, 2008. We may notice the necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal. According to the prosecution, Udayram, PW1 along with his younger brother namely Gokul (the deceased) and sister Rajubai, PW2 had gone to the village Lod for pilgrimage. After they reached the said village, they came to know that the Pujari who was to perform the puja was not available. Resultantly, all the said three persons decided to return back to their village Dhuvakhedi, Tehsil Tarana, District Ujjain.
2. At about 4-4:30 p.m., when they reached near the said village, all of a sudden the accused persons namely Atmaram, Gokul, Vikram, Ramchandra and Umrao emerged from the fields having soyabean crop.They shouted that the deceased and his relatives had set their soyabean crop afire and therefore, they should be taught a lesson. The accused Ramchandra was armed with farsi, Gokul was carrying dharia and other three accused were having lathis. All these accused persons started assaulting Udayram (PW1) causing injury on his head, left hand and legs. Gokul (the deceased) and PW2 tried to intervene and protect Udayram. In this process, both these witnesses sustained a number of injuries caused by the accused with the help of the same weapons. The other witnesses present at the site, Gajrajsingh, Sardarsingh and Gokul did not interfere in the assault because of fear and silently slipped away.
3. Another witness, Pannalal, PW8, was working in the fields nearby. Upon being called by Rajubai, PW2, Pannalal came to the place of occurrence and seeing the deceased and witnesses in injured condition, Pannalal and one Prem brought the bullock cart of one Kanhaiya Balai. Thereafter, one Umrao Bai also joined them. They finally found a jeep on the road in which Pannalal, Prem and Umrao Bai took the injured persons to the Tarana Hospital where they were admitted. From the hospital, information was sent to the Police Station, Makdon on which basis, the Head Constable Chedilal Yadav, PW23, reached Tarana Hospital. On the basis of the statement of Udayram, PW1, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was recorded at about 6:20 p.m. on 6th November, 1993.
4. A case under section 307 read with sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) was registered. All the three injured persons were subjected to medical examination by Dr. Anil Kumar Dubey, PW4, who issued their MLC reports, Ex.P-2A to P-4A. Udayram and Rajubai were treated by the doctors. At about 7 p.m., the statement of Gokul was also recorded in the presence of the witnesses. Keeping in view the serious condition of Gokul, he was required to be transferred from Tarana Hospital to Civil Hospital, Ujjain for treatment. However, he died on the way at about 11:30 p.m. on 6th November, 1993 and his dead body was kept in the Civil Hospital, Ujjain. Information was sent to the Police Station, Makdon, whereafter an offence of section 302 read with section 149 IPC was added to the charges.
5. Inquest proceedings were completed. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem and post-mortem report Ex.P-30 was prepared by Dr. Ajay Nigam (PW14).
6. After registration of the offence, the Investigating Officer, PW26, Sohan Pal Singh Choudhary visited the spot of occurrence on 7th November, 1993, from where the blood stained earth, cycle and sandal of the deceased were seized and the spot map was prepared. On 8th November, 1993, all the accused persons were arrested. Upon their interrogation and in furtherance to their statements, the arms involved in the commission of crime were recovered and seized. These seized weapons were sent to forensic science laboratory for examination on 3rd December, 1993. The examination report was received on 8th December, 1993 and in terms of the report, no blood stain was found, either in the soil or in the sealed farsi. The Inv
