Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Narendra Raikwar - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 2011
Decided On : 15-02-2021
Section 302 - Conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code - [302] - [Indian Penal Code] - [302] - The court discussed the conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence, emphasizing the greater evidentiary value of the testimony of witnesses. It referred to several judgments to establish that medical evidence cannot be accepted as conclusive when it makes the ocular testimony improbable. The court concluded that the death was homicidal based on the testimony of eye-witnesses and procedural evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500. The prosecution alleged that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by repeatedly hitting him with a helm/oar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death was homicidal based on the testimony of eye-witnesses and procedural evidence. It rejected the appellant's defense that the death was accidental and due to a fall from the terrace.
Issues: The main issue was the nature of the death of the deceased, with the appellant claiming it was accidental and due to a fall from the terrace, while the prosecution alleged it was homicidal and caused by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the greater evidentiary value of the testimony of witnesses over medical evidence and referred to several judgments to establish this principle. It concluded that the death was homicidal based on the testimony of eye-witnesses and procedural evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentence of Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default Rigorous Imprisonment for one month awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur vide judgment dated 30th April, 2011 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 211/2007.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that prior to the incident, a theft was committed in Kalimai Temple in the intervening night of 22-23rd October, 2005 wherein silver crown and girdle (Chandi Ka Mukut and Kardhani) were stolen. Siyasharan Choubey (deceased) was a priest of the temple and he lodged F.I.R. No. 1395/2005 under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. suspecting Narendra (appellant). He was prosecuted and acquitted vide judgment dated 21.4.2009.
3. On 7.7.2007, at 11:30 a.m. when the deceased was inside his house, the appellant came and started shouting outside the house. He (appellant) challenged him (deceased) to come out of the house. Responding his call when the deceased came out and asked him as to what happened, He alleged that he had implicated him in the case of theft and wielded helm/oar on his head. The deceased fell down on the ground, but the appellant didn't stop and repeated the blows with full force. The deceased sustained severe injuries on the head and started bleeding. When his nephews Umashankar Mishra and Siyasharan Mishra shouted and run towards him, he run away. Siyasharan chased him, but in vain. The deceased died on the spot. Umashankar lodged Dehati Merg and Dehati Nalshi (Ex. P-10). Based on this, the police registered Merg Ex. P-13 and F.I.R. No. 103/2007 at Police Station Garhi Malehra (Ex. P-11) and investigated the case. During the investigation, the police visited the spot, prepared spot map (Ex. P-4) and memo of corpse (Ex. P-5), sent the body for post-mortem (Ex. P-16), arrested the accused on 9.7.2007 (Ex. P-8), recorded his statement (Ex. P-6) and recovered helm along with his blood-stained shirt and pants (Ex. P-7) from his possession, sent the seized articles to the F.S.L. (Ex. P-19) and recorded statements of Gupalli @ Gopal Raikwar, Om Prakash @ Langad, Siyasharan Mishra and Umashankar Mishra. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.
4. The appellant has been charged under Section 302 I.P.C. He denied the charge and claimed for trial. After the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as stated in paragraph 1 above.
5. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court are contrary to the facts and the evidence available on the record. It has not appreciated the evidence properly and has ignored the contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It has drawn unwarranted inferences. It has erred in placing reliance on the statements of Siyasharan Mishra (PW-3) and Umashankar Mishra (PW-5), who are nephews of the deceased and are highly interested witnesses. Neither their statement nor their conduct is trust-worthy as they did not try to save their real uncle and nor they informed the police immediately after the incident. It has wrongly discarded the statement of defence witness Arun Chourasiya (DW-1). Arun has clearly stated that soon-after the incident he reached on the spot but did not see Siyasharan (PW-3) and Umashankar (PW-5) there. After seeing the deceased lying injured, he asked Manoj (DW-2) to inform them (Siyasharan & Umashankar). Manoj went to their village Magron, and informed them about the incident and only thereafter, they both came and lodged the report. The Trial Court has ignored the opinion of Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW-4) that the death of the deceased was accidental and might have caused due to falling on a hard surface. It has ignored the statement of independent witnesses, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. It has erred in convicting the appellant even
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy, supported by corroborative evidence.
The court relied on oral and documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
The court affirmed the conviction based on credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence establishing a strong link between the accused and the murder, despite minor discrepancies.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness accounts and a reliable dying declaration, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed a conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing reliance on eyewitness testimony and the sufficiency of direct evidence over the need for motive in murder cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
