Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ.
Dambarlal v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2001 (Indore);
against the judgment dated 24.9.2001 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Trial No. 117/2001;
Decided on 14.8.2019
Vivek Singh for appellant;
Saurabh Shravastava, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Headnote:
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.302 -- circumstantial evidence -- doctors not sure that injuries found on body of deceased were result of use of external force -- only expressed possibility of assault -- cannot rule out possibility of accidental fall -- prosecution evidence not sufficient to ascertain definitely that death of deceased was homicidal in nature -- evidence shows that two views possible in facts and circumstances of case -- view favourable to accused has to be adopted. AIR 2016 SC 3218, AIR 2010 SC 528, AIR 2009 SC 2067 followed. 2011(1) MPWN 49 (SC), AIR 2009 SC 1411, AIR 2009 SC 1307 referred to. [Para 21]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302 and 498A -- circumstantial evidence - no evidence of last seeing deceased in company of accused -- deceased never complained during considerable long marital life -- her father and uncle saying that she was complaining about ill-treatment, demand of dowry and harassment -- but no action ever taken on this account -- their statement is more of desperation than of substance -- cannot be acted upon to extent of hanging someone. [Para 29]
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 498A -- evidence fraught with improbabilities, doubts and oddities inconceivable with normal human conduct or behaviour -- cannot be acted upon as basis of conviction -- testimonies of witnesses fall short of requirement of proof of charge beyond all reasonable doubt -- appellant entitled to benefit of doubt. [Para 31]
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & ikfjfLFkd lk{; & fpfdRld n`<+ ugha fd e`rdk ds 'kjhj ij ikbZ xbZ {kfr;ka ckg~; cy ds Á;ksx dk ifj.kke Fkha & geys dh laHkkouk & ek= O;Dr dh & nq?kZVuko'k fxjus dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vfHk;kstu lk{; ;g fu.kkZ;d rkSj ij vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha fd e`rdk dh e`R;q ekuo o/k ÁÑfr dh Fkh & lk{; ls nf'kZr fd ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ikfjfLFkfr;ksa esa nks n`f"Vdks.k laHko & vfHk;qDr ds i{k esa n`f"Vdks.k viuk;k tkuk gksxkA , vkb vkj 2016 ,l lh 3218 , vkb vkj 2010 ,l lh 528 rFkk , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh 2067 vuqlfjrA 2011 ¼1½ eŒÁŒ ohDyh uksV~l 49 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh 1411 rFkk , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh 1307 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 rFkk 498d & ikfjfLFkd lk{; & e`rd dks vafre ckj vfHk;qDr ds lkFk ns[kus dk dksbZ lk{; ugha & dkQh yacs nkEiR; thou esa e`rdk us dHkh f'kdk;r ugha dh & mlds firk rFkk pkpk dk dguk fd og nqO;Zogkj] ngst dh ekax vkSj rax fd, tkus dh f'kdk;r djrh Fkh & ijarq bl ckjs esa dHkh dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh xbZ & mudk dFku rRo ds ctk; grk'kk dk vf/kd gS & ml ij fdlh dks Qkalh ij p<+kus dh lhek rd dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 29½
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 320 rFkk 498d & vuf/klaHkkO;rkvksa] lansgksa rFkk lkekU; ekuoh; vkpj.k ;k O;ogkj esa vÁdYiuh; fofp=rk ls Hkjiwj & nks"kflf) ds vk/kkj ds :i esa ml ij dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk ldrh & leLr ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs vkjksi ds lcwr dh vis{kk ij lk{khx.k dk ifjlk{; iwjk ugha mrjrk & vihykFkhZ lansg ds Qk;ns dk gdnkjA ¼iSjk 31½
JUDGMENT
Singh, J. --- 1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.9.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.117/2001 by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 in alternate 304B and 498A of the IPC and has awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 498A of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo two years and six months RI for both the offences respectively. No separate punishment is awarded for the offence under section 304B of the IPC.
3. Succinctly stated facts leading to the present appeal are that deceased Lalita @ Lilabai married to the appellant Dambarlal on 29.4.1994. She was found dead in the well of the appellant situated on his farmland. Her dead body was fished out by the villagers. The incident was reported to the Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch by the village Chowkidar Karulal. Merg No.05/2001 under section 174 of the CrPC (Ex.P-62) was registered. The police visited the spot, called the witnesses (Ex.P-3), prepared memo of corpse (Ex.P-2), sketched spot map (ExP-13), seized a slipper, a bucket and a nylon and cotton rope found on the hedge of the well, also seized plain and blood smudged soil (Ex.P-4), sent the dead body for postmortem and obtained report ExP-6. While preparing memo of corpse Ex.P-2, several injuries on all over the body were noticed. In postmortem also, 20 lacerated wound, abrasion and contusion were observed by the doctors. Her lever and spleen were found ruptured. Therefore, the police registered FIR No. 67/2001 and investigated the case. During investigation, it revealed that relation of the appellant and his parents with the deceased were not cordial. Their behaviour with her was not good. They were demanding money and harassing her. Once her husband had taken away her gold tops for which she had castigated him. They both embroiled in dispute. On the date of incident, he went with the deceased on his well, where he beat her and pushed her into the well and left the village and had gone to Neemuch. In reply to the query raised by the police, the doctors opined that the death was homicidal. The police arrested the accused. On his instigation, recovered gold tops from a goldsmith to whom he had sold them. The police also seized invitation card of marriage of the appellant and the deceased and after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the appellant and his parents.
4. All three accused persons were charged under section 498A, 304B in alternate 302/34 of the IPC. After the trial, parents of the appellant namely; Chandibai and Ramlal are acquitted from all the charges while the accused is convicted as stated above.
5. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence of the prosecution and in relying upon the statements of the interested witnesses and also in discarding the defense version. The trial Court has recorded the conviction without considering the contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has overlooked anomalies existing in the prosecution evidence. The trial Court further erred in not considering the fact that there was no motive to cause death. In fact it was mere an accident, which has been given colour of the crime. For these reasons, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable and he is entitled for acquittal.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Keeping in view the issues raised by the appellant, we revisited the evidence produced by the prose
