Rambabu vs State of M. P. - 2022 Supreme(MP) 75

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia and Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Rambabu & Others v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeals No. 724 of 2010, 764 of 2010 and 770
of 2010 (Gwalior): against the judgment and sentence dated 31.8.2010 passed by the I Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in
Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2005;
Decided on 22.2.2022

Advocates:
R.K.S. Kushwaha and N.P. Dwivedi with Gagan Sharma for appellants; C.P. Singh for respondent/State;
M.K. Chaudhary for complainant.

Headnote:
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 313 -- accused entitled to answer each and every circumstance alleged against him -- there should not be any lapse in putting questions to accused u/s. 313 -- if no prejudice is caused to accused then not putting of that circumstance u/s. 313 may not have any adverse effect -- otherwise, if circumstance is not put to accused in his statement u/s. 313, said circumstance cannot be considered against him. (1984) 4 SCC 116, (1996) 9 SCC 239, 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1319, (2009) 6 SCC 595 and (2018) 13 SCC 732 followed. [Paras 16 & 22
(2) Court -- power -- Court can make overall assessment to reach conclusion -- it is not bound by evidence of prosecution.(2012) 8 SCC 263 followed. [Para 46
(3) Evidence -- ocular evidence and medical evidence -- unless and until medical evidence completely rules out ocular evidence, preference has to be given to ocular evidence -- medical evidence is merely corroborative evidence -- eyewitnesses are eyes and ears of Court. (2020) 16 SCC 401, (2020) 12 SCC 605, CBI (2019) 12 SCC 1 and (2017) 11 SCC 195 followed. [Paras 51 & 56
(4) Witness -- conduct -- someone killed in presence of witness -- itcannot be said that all persons would react in uniform manner -- few witnesses would certainly get frightened. [Para 63
(5) FIR -- is not encyclopaedia -- mental agony of complainant is important aspect -- also to be kept in mind while appreciating FIR. (2005) 9 SCC 315 followed. [Paras 63 & 64
(6) Motive -- enmity -- is double-edged weapon -- if enmity provides reason to falsely implicate, it also provides motive for committing offence. (2014) 16 SCC 560 followed. [Para 72
(7) FIR -- non-mention of name -- FIR is not encyclopaedia -- each and every minute detail not expected -- but where only 5 accused persons (including accused) had assaulted deceased by weapons, non-mention of name of accused in FIR assumes importance. [Para 78
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 141 and 149 -- unlawful assembly -- not necessary that each and every member of unlawful assembly must play some overt act in commission of offence -- essential aspect is whether assembly was unlawful or not, and whether members acted in furtherance of common object or not -- to find out whether object was unlawful or not, role played by individual coupled with language used by members, arms carried by them and their behaviour prior to, during and after incident along with surrounding circumstances, plays important role -- common object is in minds of participants therefore said mental attitude is to be deciphered from overall circumstances -- in some case, silent presence may be innocent, and in some case, silent presence may be unlawful assembly with common object -- allegations against members of unlawful assembly are to be considered independently in order to find out whether they were sharing common object or not -- assembly which was not unlawful at very inception, may become unlawful at later stage. (2002) 3 SCC 327, (2019) 8 SCC 529, (2016) 10 SCC 537, (2019) 8 SCC 596, (2018) 7 SCC 743 and (2002) 1 SCC 71 followed. (2011) 5 SCC 324 referred to. [Paras 86 & 90
(9) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 149 and 34 -- charge framed u/s. 149 -- found that in fact less than 5 persons were involved in offence -- accused persons can still be punished with aid of S. 34. (2019) 5 SCC 127 followed. [Para 100
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 313 && vfHk;qDr vius fo#) vfHkdfFkr izR;sd ifjfLFkfr dk mÙkj nsus dk gdnkj && vfHk;qDr ls /kkjk 313 ds v/khu iz'u djus esa dksbZ pwd ugha gksuk pkfg, && vfHk;qDr ij dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+s rks /kkjk 313 ds v/khu ml ifjfLFkfr ij iz'u ugha djus dk dksbZ izfrdwy vlj ugha gksxk && vU;Fkk] ;fn vfHk;qDr ls /kkjk 313 ds v/khu mlds dFku esa fdlh ifjfLFkfr ij iz'u ugha fd;k x;k gS rks mlds fo#) mDr ifjfLFkfr ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼1984½4 ,l lh lh 116] ¼1996½9 ,l lh lh 239] 1999 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 1319] ¼2009½6 ,l lh lh 595 rFkk ¼2018½13 ,l lh lh 732 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 22
¼2½ U;k;ky; && 'kfDr && fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus ds fy, U;k;ky; lexz:is.k ewY;kadu dj ldrk gS && og vfHk;kstui{k ds lk{; ls vkc) ugha gksrkA ¼2012½8 ,l lh lh 263 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 46
¼3½ lk{; && pk{kq"k lk{; rFkk fpfdRlh; lk{; && tc rd fpfdRlh; lk{; pk{kq"k lk{; dks iw.kZr% vlaHko ugha cukrk] pk{kq"k lk{; dks vf/keku fn;k tkuk gksxk && fpfdRlh; lk{; dsoy laiks"kd lk{; gksrk gS && izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh U;k;ky; ds p{kq vkSj d.kZ gksrs gSaA ¼2020½16 ,l lh lh 401] ¼2020½12 ,l lh lh 605] ¼2019½12 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk ¼2017½11 ,l lh lh 195 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 51 ,oa 56
¼4½ lk{kh && vkpj.k && lk{kh dh mifLFkfr esa fdlh dk o/k && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd lHkh O;fDr;ksa dh ,d leku izfrfØ;k gksxh && dqN lk{kh fuf'pr :i ls Hk;Hkhr gksaxsA ¼iSjk 63
¼5½ izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && fo'odks"k ugha gksrh && f'kdk;rdrkZ dh ekufld ihM+k egRoiw.kZ i{k gS && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ dk foospu djrs le; bls Hkh /;ku esa j[kk tkuk gksrk gSA ¼2005½9 ,l lh lh 315 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 63 ,oa 64
¼6½ gsrq && 'kq=rk && nq/kkjh ryokj gS && ;fn 'k=qrk feF;k vkfyIr djus dk dkj.k miyC/k djkrh gS rks og vijk/k djus dk gsrq Hkh miyC/k djkrh gSA ¼2014½16 ,l lh lh 560 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 72
¼7½ izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && uke dk vuqYys[k && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ fo'odks"k ugha gksrh && izR;sd C;kSjk vis{kfr ugha && ijarq tgk¡ ek= 5 vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ¼vfHk;qDr lfgr½ us vk;q/kksa esa e`rd ij geyk fd;k ogk¡ izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa vfHk;qDr ds uke dk vuqYys[k egRoiw.kZ gks tkrk gSA ¼iSjk 10
¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 141 rFkk 149 && fof/kfo#) teko && vko';d ugha fd vijk/k djkus esa fof/kfo#) teko ds izR;sd lnL; dh izR;{k Hkwfedk gks && vko';d i{k ;g gS fd D;k teko fof/kfo#) Fkk] rFkk D;k lnL;ksa us lkekU; mís'; vxzlj djus ds fy, dk;Z fd;k && ;g irk yxkus ds fy, fd mís'; fof/kfo#) Fkk ;k ugha] vyx&vyx O;fDr }kjk fuHkkbZ xbZ Hkwfedk ds lkFk&lkFk lnL;ksa }kjk mi;ksx dh xbZ Hkk"kk] muds vk;q/k rFkk ?kVuk ds iwoZ] nkSjku vkSj i'pkr~ muds O;ogkj ds lkFk gh ifjorhZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh egRoiw.kZ Hkwfed gksrh gS && lkekU; mís'; Hkkx ysus okys O;fDr;ksa ds eu esa gksrk gS blfy, mDr ekufld vfHko`fÙk dk irk lexz ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls yxk;k tkuk gksrk gS && dqN ekeyksa esa ekSu mifLFkr funksZ"k gks ldrh gS rFkk dqN ekeyksa esa ekSu mifLFkfr lkekU; mís'; lfgr fof/kfo#) teko gks ldrk gS && ;g irk yxkus ds fy, fd muds e/; lkekU; mís'; Fkk ;k ugha] fof/kfo#) teko ds lnL;ksa ds fo#) vfHkdFkuksa ij Lora= :i ls fopkj fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && vkjaHk esa tks teko fofèkfo#) ugha Fkk og ijorhZ izØe ij fof/kfo#) gks ldrk gS ¼2002½3 ,l lh lh 327] ¼2019½8 ,l lh lh 529] ¼2016½10 ,l lh lh 537] ¼2019½8 ,l lh lh 596] ¼2018½7 ,l lh lh 743 rFkk ¼2002½ 1 ,l lh lh 71 vuqlfjrA ¼2011½5 ,l lh lh 324 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 86 ,oa 90
¼9½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 149 rFkk 34 && vkjksi /kkjk 149 ds v/khu fojfpr && fu"df"kZr fd okLro esa 5 ls de O;fDr vijk/k esa varoZfyr Fks && vfHk;qDr O;fDr fQj Hkh /kkjk 34 dh lgk;rk ls nafMr fd, tk ldrs gSaA ¼2019½5 ,l lh lh 127 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10

JUDGMENT

Ahluwalia J. -- 1. Cr.A. No. 724 of 2010 has been filed by Rambabu, Pola @ Jainarayan and Kailash, Cr.A. No. 764 of 2010 has been filed by Halkai and Rakesh, and Cr.A. No. 770 of 2010 has been filed by Atmaram, Batol @ Makhanlal, Pappu @ Sitaram, Sanjeev, Mahesh, Rajesh and Dinesh. The Appellants Raju and Jagmohan have died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, their appeals have already been dismissed as abated.

2. All the three appeals have been filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and Sentence dated 31st -Aug-2010 passed by 1st Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, Distt. Vidisha in S.T. No. 167 of 2005, by which the Appellants have been convicted under section 148,302/149 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. for offence under section 148 of IPC and for Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default imprisonment of 3 months R.I. for offence under section 302/149 of IPC.

3. The prosecution story in short is that on 13.6.2005 at about 18:30, the complainant Datar Singh lodged a Dehati Nalishi alleging that in the afternoon, Babulal Sharma was beaten on account of old enmity and therefore, they had gone to Police Station. Since, buses were not plying therefore, they were going on motor cycles to Sironj Hospital along with Babulal for his medical examination. When they crossed village Chadholi and reached in front of Govt. park, the accused persons namely Atmaram, Mahesh, Pappu, Sanjeev, Kailash, Rakesh, Rambabu, Dinesh, Batol, Jagmohan, Raju, Pola all armed with sword and knives came on three motor cycles and waylaid them. Atmaram assaulted Babulal by knife in his stomach and thereafter, all started assaulting the deceased. The accused persons also chased and Mahesh and hurled a knife at him, but it did not hit him. At that time, Mukesh, Rajkumar, Suresh also came there and all the accused persons ran away. On this Dehati Nalishi, FIR was lodged.

4. The dead body of Babulal was sent for post-mortem, Lash Panchnama was prepared, Statements of witnesses were recorded, the seized articles were sent to F.S.L. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge sheet for offence under sections 341, 294, 147, 148,149,302 of IPC and under section 25 of Arms Act. The Appellant Dinesh was absconding, however, he too was arrested during the pendency of the trial, and accordingly, Supplementary charge sheet was also filed against him and some of the witnesses who were examined in his absence were recalled.

5. The trial Court by order dated 7.1.2006 framed charges under sections 148,302/149 of Cr.P.C. against the Appellants except Dinesh and by order dated 17.10.2006, framed charges under 148, 302/149 of IPC against Dinesh also.

6. Thereafter, Dinesh filed an application, claiming that he was juvenile on the date of incident, and accordingly, enquiry was done and by order dated 30.6.2007, it was found that Dinesh was not juvenile on the date of incident.

7. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

8. The prosecution examined Datar Singh (P.W.1), Rajkumar Sharma (P.W.2), Mukesh Sharma (P.W.3), Dr. Vivek Agrawal (P.W.4), Suresh Kumar Sharma (P.W.5), Mahesh Sharma (P.W.6), Rakesh (P.W.7), Sohan Lal Damade (P.W.8), Mohan Babu Sharma (P.W.9), Bhagirath (P.W.10), Man Mohan Ahirwar (P.W.11), Kailash Singh (P.W.12), and Ramesh Shukla (P.W.13).

9. The appellants examined Dr. Rakesh Saxena (D.W.1), Ashok Dubey (D.W.2), Hari Om Sharma (D.W.3), Avinash Tiwari (D.W.4), Raj Kumar Gour (D.W.5), Rajendra Singh Chouhan (D.W.6), Shyamlal Patel (D.W.7), Dr. Milind Rakede (D.W.8) and Dr. Rekha Sharma (D.W.9).

10. The trial Court, by impugned judgment has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences mentioned above.

11. Challenging the impugned judgment, it is submitted by the Counsels for the appellants, that in fact none of the so-called eye witnesses had witnessed the incident. According to the prosecution, the deceased Babul