Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 438
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
Alok Verma, J.
Mohansingh - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1999
Decided On : 03-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Ashish Gupta, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent: Shri C.S. Ujjainia, Learned Counsel
The reliability of the sole testimony of the injured Jokhalibai was the central legal point established in the judgment.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Section 307 - [IPC Section 307] - The court found the appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence based on the reliable testimony of the injured Jokhalibai.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 307 of IPC for inflicting injuries on his wife. The injured Jokhalibai's testimony was the sole evidence supporting the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the reliable testimony of the injured Jokhalibai and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The sole testimony of the injured Jokhalibai was found to be fully reliable, and the conviction of the appellant was based on her statement alone.
Final Decision: The appeal was found to be devoid of merit and dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court were confirmed, and the appellant was directed to be taken into custody to serve the remaining portion of his sentence.
Shri Alok Verma, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhabua in S.T. No.203/1998 dated 23.01.1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the present appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to 3 years R.I.
2. It is admitted in this case that the injured Jokhalibai is the wife of the present appellant and it is also admitted that Ramesh PW-2 and Poonam PW-3 are children of the present appellant and injured Jokhalibai.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.03.1998 at about 9 P.M., the injured Jokhalibai was cooking food. The present appellant was also at home. He was working as Home Guard. He started using abusive language against the injured Jokhalibai and said that he will not leave her alive and thereafter, it is alleged that he inflicted three injuries by a sphere. The first injury was in the abdomen due to which the small intestine came out. The second injury was on her chest which was deep cavity and third injury was on left wrist which was V-shaped. The learned Sessions Judge found the present appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to R.I. as aforesaid.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence as aforesaid, this appeal is filed on the ground that all the witnesses except the injured turned hostile and, therefore, the conviction should be set aside. None of the injuries found on the body of the injured was dangerous to life. According to the defence taken by the present appellant (i) he was not present at home and this fact was not taken into consideration by the trial Court (ii) according to the FIR the incident took place on 19.03.1998, however, the doctor examined the injured on 18.03.1998 and this discrepancy was not taken into consideration by trial Court (iii) there was no eye witness of the incident (iv) the injured Jokhalibai said that after the incident she went unconscious, however, according to the doctor when she was brought to the hospital, she was conscious and the said discrepancy was also not taken into consideration (v) the blood found on the sphere was not matching with the blood group of the injured and, therefore, this fact was also to be taken into consideration (vi) both the sons of the injured turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and this fact was also not taken into consideration. Based on the above mentioned grounds the present appellant prays that judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State supports the judgment and submits that this appeal should be dismissed.
6. The question is whether the trial Court erred in holding the present appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC. Ramesh PW-2 is son of the present appellant and the injured Jokhalibai. According to him, his father did not cause any injury to his mother, neither he used any abusive language against her. Similarly Poonam PW-3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Remu (PW-4) is stated to be the person who reached on the spot on hearing the cry of Jokhalibai. He also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Similarly, the seizure witnesses also turned hostile.
7. In such a situation, the only evidence available is Jokhalibai, who is the injured and examined as PW-10. In her statement she stated that on the date of incident, at about 8 P.M., she was cooking food, when her husband, the present appellant called her "dayan" and thereafter he inflicted three injuries on abdomen and chest and left wrist by sphere. Hearing her cry, her sons Ramesh PW-2, Poonam PW-3 and also Remu PW-4 came there. Seeing them the appellant fled away. The injured was taken by her sons to the Police Station, where she lodged the report herself which is marked as Ex.P-10. Her dying declaration was also recorded immediately i.e. Ex.P-7. The statement was recorded by the doctor. In her cross examination there is n
