Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 177
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE
Prakash Shrivastava, Shailendra Shukla, JJ.
Durgesh And Another - Appellants
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
CRA No.1434/2010
Decided On : 13-01-2020
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Seema Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellants; Shri Anil Ojha, Public Prosecutor, for the State
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 300 IPC, Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, and Section 302/34 IPC in determining the guilt and sentencing of the appellants.
Headnote:
Culpable Homicide - Criminal Appeal - Special Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 294, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 25(1)(b)(b) of the Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions under Section 300 IPC, Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, and Section 302/34 IPC in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Anil, who was stabbed to death. The prosecution relied on eye-witness accounts and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries were sufficient to cause death and were inflicted with the intention to commit murder. The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, and their sentence was affirmed.
Issues: The issues included the cause of Anil's death, the reliability of the eye-witness accounts, the timing of the FIR, and the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unimpeachable eye-witness account, identification proceedings, and the discovery of weapons to establish the guilt of the appellants. It also considered the intention behind the attack and the nature of the injuries in affirming the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was rejected, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were affirmed.
JUDGMENT
Shailendra Shukla, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, preferred against the judgment dated 11.11.2010, passed by the ASJ, (Special Electricity Act, 2003), Indore, in S.T.No.333/2007, wherein the appellants Durgesh and Manish, have been convicted as under :-
2. The prosecution story in short was that on 20.5.2007 at around 11.00 PM to 11.45 PM while deceased Anil was talking to his brother Sachin (PW4) at Ambe Square, Indore, appellant Durgesh came with two other co-accused persons and started abusing Anil. When Anil protested, one of the accused caught hold of Anil and appellants Durgesh and Manish, inflicted knife injuries on Anil. When Anil shouted, witnesses Sonu (PW9), Rajkumar (PW18), Manoj (PW6) and Naresh (PW13) arrived at the spot. Injured Anil was taken to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore where he died and police was intimated by telephone operator of M.Y. Hospital. Merg was instituted on the basis of information received. Thereafter FIR was lodged in the MIG police station by Sachin against Durgesh and two unknown persons and after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Manish, Durgesh and Ritesh. The trial court framed charges under Section 294, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against all three accused persons. Charge under Section 25(1)(b)(b) of the Arms Act were framed against Manish and Durgesh. The accused abjured their guilt and prosecution proceeded to examine its witnesses. In all 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in its support.
3. The appellants did not lead any defence evidence in their support. The trial court after considering the evidence pronounced its judgment on 11.11.2010 whereby accused Ritesh was acquitted of all the charges and appellants Durgesh and Manish were acquitted from the charge under Section 294 of IPC. However, they were convicted and sentenced as described in para 1 of the judgment.
4. The grounds for appeal are that the trial court committed an error in relying upon the evidence of witnesses Sachin (PW4), Satish Kushwah (PW5) and Manoj (PW6). Even though there are number of contradictions and omissions in their depositions and in the identification parade, the complainant had identified only one accused, both of them have been convicted; FIR was in the name of unknown persons and the value of identification parade assumed great importance; FIR was ante timed which was not considered by the trial court; the trial court failed to see that the articles seized were recovered from the open space and that witnesses are chance witnesses who are unreliable. Incident had occurred in the night and it was pitch dark and there was sudden fight. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be set aside.
5. In their accused statements, the appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence.
6. The question before this court that whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeal memo, trial court has wrongly convicted the appellants and whether the appellants deserve to be acquitted.
7. The questions for determination in this appeal are as follows:-
(1) Whether death of Anil was a result of culpable homicide ?
(2) Whether Anil died as a result of injuries caused to him by the appellants ?
( 3) Whether culpable homicide of Anil amounted to murder ?
(4) Adequacy of sentence after findings proved against the appellants.
8. Regarding question No.1 - Dr. A. K. Lanjewal (PW-11) states that on 21.05.2007, he was posted in M. Y. Hospital at Indore and on that day, dead body of deceased Anil S/o Tarachand was brought by Constable for postmortem and the body was identified by Naresh, brother of Anil. It was found rigor mortise spread over the whole body and there was hypostasis present on the whole body. There were six distinct injuries found on the body which were stab wounds, which are as follows:-
(a) Stab incised wound 10cms below left of sternum - s
