2019 Supreme(MP) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Ramjilal @ Munna & Others v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 1014 of 2015 (Gwalior): against the judgment and sentence dated 8.10.2015 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Sessions Trial No. 170/2008; Decided on 14.8.2019
R. K. S. Kushwah as Amicus Curiae; Vijay Sundaram, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 315 -- accused decides to appear as defence witness -- loses all immunities available to accused -- accused can maintain silence on a particular issue but once he appears as defence witness, he has to explain each and every circumstance. Cr. A. No. 6426 of 2017 decided 10.5.2019 (Gwalior) relied on. [Para 34]
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- medical evidence not contrary to ocular evidence -- ocular evidence not improbable. (2018) 3 SCC 66 and (2017) 11 SCC 195 referred to. [Para 39]
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 11 -- plea of alibi -- has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (2015) 4 SCC 749, (2010) 8 SCC 430 and (1997) 1 SCC 283 followed. [Para 46]
(4) Practice (Criminal) -- non-explanation of injuries on body of accused -- defence itself proved case of prosecution that accused started quarrel -- even otherwise, accused sustained minor injuries -- non-explanation of minor injuries on body of accused not fatal to prosecution case. (2012) 4 SCC 79, (2017) 13 SCC 98, (2018) 16 SCC 525 and (2018) 7 SCC 536 followed. [Paras 52 & 59]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 149 -- common object can develop even on spot -- presence of all other appellants not innocent -- specific allegations that they too assaulted injured persons -- ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence -- they were not mere silent spectators -- played active role in assault. (2016) 10 SCC 537, (2018) 7 SCC 743 and. (2019) 5 SCC 67 followed. [Para 63]
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- interested witness -- defence itself proved initiation of quarrel by accused -- injuries sustained by injured persons fully corroborate ocular evidence -- witnesses also sustained injuries therefore their presence on spot is not in doubt -- evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on ground that they are related witnesses. (2016) 10 SCC 537 and (2016) 16 SCC 426 followed. [Para 70]
(7) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- non-recovery of weapon of offence -- would not make ocular evidence unreliable -- direct ocular evidence of injured witnesses -- prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely on ground of non-recovery of weapon of offence. (2016) 3 SCC 317 and (2013) 12 SCC 796 followed. [Paras 72 & 75]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & èkkjk 315 & vfHk;qDr çfrj{kk lk{kh ds :i esa mifLFkr gksus dk fofu'p; djrk gS & vfHk;qDr dks miyCèk leLr mUeqfDr;ksa ls oafpr gks tkrk gS & vfHk;qDr fdlh fof'k"V fcUnq ekSu jg ldrk gS ijarq çfrj{kk lk{kh ds :i esa mifLFkr gksus ij mls çR;sd ifjfLFkfr Li"V djuk gksrh gSA nkafMd vihy Øekad 6426 lu~ 2017 fu.kÊr fnukad 10-5-2019 ¼Xokfy;j½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 34½
¼2½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 & èkkjk 60 & fpfdRlh; lk{; pk{kq"k lk{; ds çfrdwy ugha & pk{kq"k lk{; vlaHkkO; ughaA ¼2018½ 3 ,l lh lh 66 rFkk ¼2017½ 11 ,l lh lh 195 fuÆn"VA ¼iSjk 39½
¼3½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 & èkkjk 11 & vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ & ;qfDr;qDr lansg ds ijs lkfcr fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼2015½ 4 ,l lh lh 749] ¼2010½ 8 ,l lh lh 430 rFkk ¼1997½ 1 ,l lh lh 283 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 46½
¼4½ çFkk ¼nkafMd½ & vfHk;qDr ds 'kjhj ij {kfr;ksa dk Li"VhÑr ugha gksuk & Lo;a çfrj{kki{k us vfHk;kstu dk i{kdFku lkfcr fd;k fd vfHk;qDr us >xM+k vkjaHk fd;k & vU;Fkk Hkh vfHk;qDr dks xkS.k {kfr;ka igqaph & vfHk;qDr ds 'kjhj ij xkS.k {kfr;ksa dk Li"Vhdj.k ugha gksuk vfHk;kstu ekeys ds fy, ?kkrd ugÈA ¼2012½ 4 ,l lh lh 79] ¼2017½ 13 ,l lh lh 98] ¼2018½ 16 ,l lh lh 525 rFkk ¼2018½ 7 ,l lh lh 536 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 52 ,oa 59½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 149 & lkekU; mn~ns'; LFky ij Hkh fodflr gks ldrk gS & vU; lc vihykFkÊx.k dh mifLFkfr fujhg ugha & fofuÆn"V vfHkdFku fd mUgksaus Hkh {kfrxzLr O;fDr;ksa ij geyk fd;k & pk{kq"k lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls laiq"V & og dsoy ekSu n`"Vk ugÈ Fks & geys esa lfØ; Hkwfedk fuHkkÃA ¼2016½ 10 ,l lh lh 537] ¼2018½ 7 ,l lh lh 743 rFkk ¼2019½ 5 ,l lh lh 67 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 63½
¼6½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 & èkkjk 60 & fgrc) lk{kh & Lo;a çfrj{kki{k us vfHk;qDr }kjk >xM+k vkjaHk fd;k tkuk lkfcr fd;k & {kfrxzLr O;fä;ksa dks igqapha {kfr;ksa ls pk{kq"k lk{; iw.kZr% laiq"V & lk{khx.k dks Hkh {kfr;ka igqaph blfy, LFky ij mudh mifLFkfr lansgkLin ugÈ & vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k dk lk{; ek= bl vkèkkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd og ukrsnkj lk{kh gSaA ¼2016½ 10 ,l lh lh 537 rFkk ¼2016½ 16 ,l lh lh 426 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 70½
¼7½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 & èkkjk 27 & vijkèk dk vk;qèk cjken ugha gksuk & pk{kq"k lk{; vuoyacuh; ugha gks tkrk & {kfrxzLr lk{khx.k dk çR;{k pk{kq"k lk{; & vijkèk dk vk;qèk cjken ugha gksus ds vkèkkj ek= ij vfHk;kstu ekeys ij vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2016½ 3 ,l lh lh 317 rFkk ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 796 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 72 ,oa 75½
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal under section 374 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 8.10.2015 passed by 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena in Sessions Trial No. 170/2008, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:
| Name of appellants | Sections | Sentence | Fine (Rs.) | Default stipulation |
| No. 1 - Ramjilal @ Munna | 307/149 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
| No. 2 - Horilal | 307/149 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
| No 3 - Jagmohan | 307/149 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
| No. 4 - Khema Khemraj | 307/149 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
| No. 5 - Hukum Singh | 307/149 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
| No. 6 - Brajesh | 307 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
| No. 7 - Barelal | 307/149 of IPC | 10 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 2 years RI | 2000/- | 30 days RI | |
| 323 (2 counts) of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year RI | 1000/- | 15 days RI | |
| 147 of IPC | No separate sentence has been awarded in view of section 71 of IPC. | |||
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in short are that in Sabalgarh hospital, the complainant Shivnarayan gave an information to the SHO to the effect that his dispute with appellant Ramjilal is going-on on the question of mud boundary between the field. On the date of incident, his son Roop Singh had gone to the field for irrigation purposes, whereas the complainant, his wife and his another son Bir Singh were in the another field, where they heard the shouts of Roop Singh. When they reached near Roop Singh, they found that he was surrounded by the appellants. The appellants were having ballam, lohangi, lathi and axe and they were scolding Roop Singh that he has broken the mud boundary of their field and, accordingly, the appellant Ramjilal Rawat started throwing stones, when Roop Singh objected to it, then the appellant Brajesh gave an axe blow on the head of Roop Singh, as a result of which, he fell down. Appellant Jagmohan gave a lathi blow, which landed on the knee of his right leg. When the complainant Shivnarayan, Bir Singh and Baikunthi tried to save Roop Singh, then appellant Khema @ Khemraj Rawat gave a farsa blow which landed on the right side of forehead of Shivnarayan. Al