Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Yadav and Vivek Agarwal, JJ.
Ankur @ Nitesh Dixit v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 3539 of 2019 (Gwalior) with Criminal Reference No. 06 of 2019 (Death Reference): against the judgment dated 19.3.2019 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 1500179/2016;
Decided on 9.9.2019
Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Amicus Curiae with Padam Singh and V. K. Agrawal for appellant; Ankur Mody, Additional Advocate General and F. A. Shah, Government Advocate for respondent/State; V.D. Sharma for complainant.
Headnote:
(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 45 -- Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 -- S. 5 -- fingerprint -- specimen fingerprint ought to be taken before Judicial Magistrate as per Identification of Prisoners Act -- procedure not followed -- no reliance can be placed. (1997) 10 SCC 44 followed. 2004 (3) RCR (Cr.) 55 and AIR 2009 SCW 4448 distinguished. (1976) 1 SCC 542 referred to. [Para 132]
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.45 -- expert evidence -- not a piece of substantive evidence, but a piece of corroborative evidence -- Court is not bound to accept opinion of expert automatically, but ground of his opinion would carry value. [Para 132]
(3) Words and Phrases -- rigor mortis -- cadaveric rigidity -- also known as death stiffening -- comes on immediately after muscles lose power of contractility -- is due to irreversible changes in muscles, both voluntary and involuntary -- time of onset varies greatly in different cases -- average period of onset may be 3 to 6 hours after death in temperate climates -- may take 2 to 3 hours to develop -- in India, it usually commences 1 to 2 hours after death -- in temperate regions, it usually lasts for 2 to 3 days -- in northern India, usual duration of rigor mortis is 24 to 48 hours in winter and 18 to 26 hours in summer. Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (24th Edition Reprint 2012) relied on. [Para 134]
(4) Criminal Trial -- prosecution is duty bound to produce all documents on record -- its responsibility is not to punish somebody but to assist in fair trial. [Para 149]
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 201 -- appellant convicted for murder of five persons -- no direct evidence -- no evidence of last seen -- case of circumstantial evidence -- except for knife recovered from mud pool, no incriminating article recovered -- no blood stain on knife -- no motive except that drawn from memorandum of appellant u/s. 27, Evidence Act -- major contradictions and omissions in evidence led by prosecution -- resulting in non-completion of chain of circumstances -- accused cannot be sent to gallows on basis of such evidences -- prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt -- conviction and sentence set aside. AIR 1993 SC 950, AIR 1984 SC 1622 and (2005) 5 SCC 272 followed. 2019 (2) JLJ 39 relied on. AIR 1983 SC 360, (2018) 1 SCC 296, AIR 1987 SC 1507, 1993 JLJ 744 (SC), 1998 (2) JLJ 350, 2002 SCC (Cri) 1100, 2008 (2) JLJ 19, 2010 (1) MPWN 2, AIR 2013 SC 3150, (2013) 12 SCC 406, AIR 2016 SC 4581, 2015 Cri. LJ. 2041, AIR 2017 SC 1246, (2015) 4 SCC 739, AIR 2019 SC 1367, AIR 2019 SC 1457, (2019) 2 SCC 303, (2016) 10 SCC 220, (2018) 7 SCC 536, AIR 2019 SC 243, AIR 2019 SC 194, 2019 (1) JLJ 51 (SC) : AIR 2019 SC 1, AIR 2019 SC 298, (2018) 8 SCC 24, AIR 2006 SC 3709, AIR 2018 SC 3592, AIR 2018 SC 5264, AIR 2001 SC 2226 and 2019 (2) JLJ 373 (SC) : 2018 SCC Online SC 1688 referred to. [Paras 4, 165 & 166]
¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & canh 'kuk[r vf/kfu;e] 1920 & /kkjk 5 & vaxq"B fpUg & canh 'kuk[r vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj uewuk vaxq"B fpUg U;kf;d eftLVªsV ds le{k fy;k tkuk pkfg, & ÁfØ;k dk ikyu ugha & voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA ¼1997½ 10 ,l lh lh 44 vuqlfjrA 2004 ¼3½ vkj lh vkj ¼fØŒ½ 55 rFkk , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh MCY;w 4448 ÁHksfnrA ¼1976½ 1 ,l lh lh 542 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 132½
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & fo'ks"kK lk{; & eq[; lk{; ugha] vfirq laiks"kd lk{; gS & U;k;ky; fo'ks"kK dh jk; Lor% gh Lohdkj djus dks vkc) ugha ijarq mldh jk; dk vk/kkj ewY;oku gSA ¼iSjk 132½
¼3½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k & e`R;qt dkfBU; & 'ko dh dBksjrk & e`R;q dM+drk ds :i esa Hkh Kkr & ekalisf'k;ksa dh ladqpu'khyrk dh 'kfDr lekIr gksus ds rqjar i'pkr gksrk gS & ekalisf'k;ksa esa LoSfPNd rFkk vuSfPNd] nksuksa Ádkj ds vifjorZuh; cnykoksa ds dkj.k gksrk gS & fHkUu&fHkUu ekeyksa esa vkjaHk dk le; vR;f/kd QdZ gksrk gS & le'khrks".k tyok;q esa vkjaHk dh vkSlr vofèk e`R;q ds i'pkr~ 3 ls 6 ?kaVs dh gks ldrh gS & fodflr gksus esa 2 ls 3 ?kaVs yx ldrs gSa & Hkkjr esa ;g Ák;% e`R;q ds 1 ls 2 ?kaVs i'pkr~ vkjaHk gksrk gS & le'khrks".k {ks=ksa esa ;g Ák;% 2 ls 3 fnu jgrk gS & mÙkjh Hkkjr esa e`R;qt dkfBU; dh Ákf;d vof/k 'khrdky esa 24 ls 48 ?kaVs rFkk xzh"edky esa 18 ls 26 ?kaVs gSA eksnh Ñr VsDLVcqd vkWQ esfMdy T;wfjlÁwMsUl ,aM VkWfDldksykWth ¼24oka laLdj.k 2012 iqueqZæ.k½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 134½
¼4½ nkafMd fopkj.k & vfHk;kstui{k vfHkys[k ij leLr nLrkost ÁLrqr djus dks drZO;c) gS & mldk mÙkjnkf;Ro fdlh dks nafMr djus dk ugha vfirq _tq fopkj.k esa lgk;rk djus dk gSA ¼iSjk 149½
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 rFkk 201 & vihykFkhZ ikap O;fDr;ksa dh gR;k ds fy, fl)nks"k Bgkjk;k x;k & dksbZ ÁR;{k lk{; ugha & vafre ckj lkFk ns[ks tkus dk lk{; ugha & ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; dk ekeyk & dhpM+ ds dqaM ls pkdw dh cjkenxh ds flok;] vijk/k esa Qalkus okyh dksbZ oLrq cjken ugha & pkdw ij jDr dk nkx ugha & lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 ds vèkhu vfHk;qDr ds Kkiu ls fudkys x, gsrq ds flok; dksbZ gsrq ugha & vfHk;kstui{k }kjk is'k fd, x, lk{; esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl rFkk yksi & ifj.kkeLo:i ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh Ja[kyk viw.kZ & ,sls lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr dks Qkalh ij ugha pढk;k tk ldrk & vfHk;kstui{k vkjksi ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs LFkkfir djus esa vlQy & nks"kflf) rFkk naMkns'k vikLrA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 950] , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1622 rFkk ¼2005½ 5 ,l lh lh 272 vuqlfjrA 2019 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 39 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1983 ,l lh 360] ¼2018½ 1 ,l lh lh 296] , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1507] 1993 ts ,y ts 744 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] 1998 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 350] 2002 ,l lh lh ¼fØŒ½ 1100] 2008 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 19] 2010 ¼1½ eŒÁŒ ohDyh uksVl 2] ¼2013½ ,l lh lh 3150] ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 406] , vkb vkj 2016 ,l lh 4581] 2015 lhvkj ,y ts 2041] , vkb vkj 2017 ,l lh 1246] ¼2015½ 4 ,l lh lh 739] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 1367] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh lh 303] ¼2016½ 10 ,l lh lh 220] ¼2018½ 7 ,l lh lh 536] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 243] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 194] 2019 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 51 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ % , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 298] ¼2018½ 8 ,l lh lh 24] , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 3709] , vkb vkj 2018 ,l lh 3592] , vkb vkj 2018 ,l lh 5264] , vkb vkj 2001 ,l lh 2226 rFkk 2019 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 373 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 4] 165 ,oa 166½
JUDGMENT
Agarwal, J. -- 1. This Criminal Reference and appeal arise from the judgment dated 19.3.2019 passed in Sessions Case No. 1500179/2016 by the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has held appellant to be guilty of charges under section 302 of IPC on five counts and section 201 of IPC and sentenced him to be hanged till death on confirmation of such sentence by the High Court under section 302 of IPC and further sentenced him to undergo 7 years RI with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment.
2. Criminal Reference has been made under the provisions of section 366 of CrPC, whereas criminal appeal against the said judgment has been filed under the provisions of section 374 of CrPC.
3. As per prosecution story, incident took place in the intervening night of 13.5.2016 and 14.5.2016. Allegation is that appellant was giving tuition to the family members of one Smt. Reena resident of Bhind and while imparting such tuition he had developed relationship with Reena who was a widow and was residing in the house of her father-in-law Rambabu Shukla (PW1). Alongwith Reena there were four other persons residing in the said house namely Ku. Mahima aged about 16 years daughter of Vedprakash Shukla, Ku. Chavi aged about 10 years daughter of Shashikant Shukla & Reena Shukla, Ku. Ambika aged about 16 years daughter of Brijmohan Bhardwaj and niece of Reena and Golu @ Avnish Sharma aged about 13 years son of Ramkumar Sharma, who was distantly related Devar (brother-in-law) of deceased Reena.
4. It is an admitted position that there is no direct evidence. There is no evidence of last seen. It is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein except for a knife recovered from a mud pool, no incriminating article was recovered. There was no blood stain on the knife as per the FSL report and no motive could be gathered except drawn from the memorandum given by the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Rambabu Shukla (PW1) at about 10 am on 14.5.16 and was recorded by the T.I. and I.O. of the case Mirja Asif Beg (PW28). Apart from knife recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-12, having total length of 8” out of which length of handle is 4”, recovery of a soiled glass allegedly containing finger prints of the accused besides other Articles was made vide Ex.P-8. During post-mortem of Reena vide Ex.P-24A her vaginal swab and slides were prepared and handed over to the police Constable which were subjected to DNA examination, report of which is Ex.P-43 and certificate of expertise of fingerprint specialist as Ex.P-46 has been corroborated with call details of the appellant and deceased Reena. These call details are Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-20 and on the basis of such DNA report obtained after matching of vaginal swab and sample of blood collected from the appellant vide Ex.P-43, so also on the basis of call details and finger print report, appellant has been convicted on the charge of committing murder of five innocent persons.
5. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several loopholes in the prosecution story and appellant has been falsely implicated on account of his relations with deceased Reena. It is submitted that as per prosecution story in the morning of 14th May, 2016 Neelesh Sharma (PW16) son of Sandeep Bhardwaj and grand-son of Shriram Sharma was asked by his grand-father Shriram Sharma to visit house of his Bua (aunt), namely Reena, to look for his sister Ambika, then he visited house of Reena situated at a distance of 3-4 house from the house of Shriram Sharma i.e. father of Reena and when he pressed the call bell, there was no response. There was lock on both the gates and in the meanwhile his grand-father Shriram Sharma also reached to the house of Reena and asked Neelesh Sharma @ Betu to climb the terrace of the neighbourer and look inside the house of his aunt. He accordingly climbed the terra
