Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Adityaraj Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeals No. 854 of 2012 and 819 of 2012 (Indore): against the judgment and sentence dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No. 165/2011;
Decided on 24.1.2023
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 161 -- delay in recording statement -- effect -- delay material only if it indicates and suggests unfair practice by investigating agency for introducing got-up witness to falsely support prosecution case -- does not necessarily discredit testimony -- testimony of such witnesses credible and cogent, and delay well explained -- Court can rely upon them. [Para 27
(2) Witness -- story presented by witness quite vague, uncertain and does not resemble facts of case -- statement not reliable.
[Para 47
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302, 300 Excep. 4 and 304 Pt. I -- two prosecution witnesses received injuries in incident – deceased received gunshot injury on neck -- statements of eye-witnesses supported by medical evidence as well as FSL report -- co-accused also received serious injury in same incident -- prosecution has not explained his injuries -- appears that prosecution has hidden origin of incident -- statements of injured witnesses contrary in respect of origin of incident -- defence of appellants appears probable -- offence committed by appellant without pre-meditation, in heat of passion, upon sudden quarrel -- comes under Exception 4 of S. 300 -- punishable u/s. 304 Pt. I of IPC. (2018) SCC 536, 2021 SCC Online SC 1099 and AIR 1999 SC 1773 followed. Cr. A. No. 174 of 2011 decided on 29.4.2022 (MP) relied on. [Para 52
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 324 -- appellant voluntarily caused injury to injured witness by means of farsi which is sharp-edged weapon -- punishable u/s. 324 of IPC. [Para 53
(5) Arms Act, 1959 -- Ss. 25 and 39 -- appellant possessed gun without valid licence -- fired it on deceased -- sanction for prosecution properly accorded -- offence punishable u/ss. 25 (1B) (a) and 27 (1) -- convicted only u/s. 25 (1B) (a) -- prosecution did not file appeal -- conviction upheld. [Paras 54 & 55
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && èkkjk 161 && dFku vfHkfyf[kr djus esa foyac && izHkko && foyac rc gh rkfRod tc og vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k }kjk vfHk;kstu ds i{kdFku ds feF;k leFkZu ds fy, rS;kj fd;k gqvk lk{kh izLrqr djus dk v_tq O;ogkj minf'kZr djrk gks vkSj lq>krk gks && mlls ifjlk{; vko';drk% vfo'oluh; ugha gks tkrk && ,sls lkf{k;ksa dk ifjlk{; fo'oluh; rFkk rdZiw.kZ] rFkk foyac vPNs ls Li"VhÑr && U;k;ky; mudk voyac ys ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 27
¼2½ lk{kh && lk{kh }kjk is'k dh xbZ dgkuh dkQh vLi"V] vfuf'pr rFkk izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls esy ugha [kkrh && dFku fo'oluh; ughaA ¼iSjk 47
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 302] 300 viokn 4 rFkk 304 Hkkx 1 && ?kVuk esa nks vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dks {kfr;k¡ igq¡ph && e`rd dks xnZu ij xksyh dh {kfr igq¡ph && izR;{kn'khZ lkf{k;ksa ds dFku fpfdRlh; lk{; ds lkFk gh U;k;ky;hu iz;ksx'kkyk ds izfrosnu ls lefFkZr && lg&vfHkqDr dks Hkh mlh ?kVuk esa xaHkhj {kfr igq¡ph && vfHk;kstui{k us mldh {kfr;ksa dk Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k && izrhr gksrk gS fd vfHk;kstui{k us ?kVuk dk mRl fNik;k gS && ?kVuk ds mRl ds ckjs esa {kfrxzLr lkf{k;ksa ds dFku fojks/kkHkklh && vihykFkhZx.k dh izfrj{kk laHkkO; izrhr gksrk gS && vihykFkhZ }kjk vijk/k fdlh iwoZfparu ds fcuk] vkos'k dh rhozrk esa] vpkud gq, >xM+s esa fd;k x;k && /kkjk 300 ds viokn 4 ds v/khu vkrk gS && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 304 Hkkx 1 ds v/khu naMuh;A ¼2018½,l lh lh 536] 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1099 rFkk , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 1773 vuqlfjrA nkafMd vihy Ø- 174 lu~ 2011 fu.khZr fnukad 29-4-2022 ¼e-iz-½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 52
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 324 && vihykFkhZ us {kfrxzLr lk{kh dks Qjlh ls LosPN;k {kfr dkfjr dh] tks rh{.k /kkj okyk gfFk;kj gS && naM lafgrk dh èkkjk 324 ds v/khu naMuh;A ¼iSjk 53
¼5½ vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && èkkjk 25 rFkk 39 && vihykFkhZ ds dCts esa fof/kekU; vuqKfIr ds fcuk canwd && mlls e`rd ij xksyh pykbZ && vfHk;kstu ds fy, eatwjh mfpr nh xbZ && vijk/k /kkjk 25 ¼1[k½ ¼d½ rFkk 27¼1½ ds v/khu naMuh; dsoy /kkjk 25 ¼1[k½ ¼d½ ds v/khu fl)nks"k Bgjk;k x;k && vfHk;sktui{k us vihy ugha dh && nks"kflf) ekU; dh xbZA ¼iSjk 54 ,oa 55
JUDGEMENT
1. This judgement will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.854/2012 and Criminal Appeal No.819/2012, which are arising out of the common judgement dated 6.7.2012. On the joint request of the parties, these appeals were analogously heard and decided by this common judgement.
2. Both the appellants/accused have filed these appeals under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) being aggrieved by the judgement dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in S.T. No.165/2011, whereby learned trial Court, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :-
| S. No. | Conviction | Sentence |
|
|
|
|
| Imprisonment | Fine amount | Additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine |
| Appellant – Adityaraj Singh | ||||
| 1 | 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.20,000/- | RI for 03 years |
| 2 | 25 (1B)(a) of Arms Act | RI for 03 years | Rs.5,000/- | RI for 06 months |
| Appellant – Mahendra Singh | ||||
| 1 | 324 of IPC | RI for 01 year | Rs.5,000/- | RI for 06 months |
3. Prosecution story, in nutshell is that there was a program of “Ausar” at the residence of Bhagwan Singh in village Bhopalpura, a day prior to the date of incident. Yashpal Singh (PW-2), son of Surendra Singh (PW-1) was serving food in the program. At the same time, mother of the appellant Adityaraj Singh scolded Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and told him to stay away from her. Yashpal Singh (PW-2) came home from there and complained about the incident to his family members. On the date of incident i.e. on 31.03.2011, Surendra Singh (PW-1) alongwith his sons Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and Bhemendra/deceased went to home of co-accused Shyamraj Singh and Surendra Singh (PW-1) and asked Shyamraj Singh that why his mother insulted Yashpal Singh (PW-2). Coaccused Shyamraj Singh answered to him that he will admonish her. Thereafter on the same day in the afternoon, when Yashpal Singh (PW-2) was helping in loading of tractor with tent house accessories, appellant Adityaraj Singh abused and assaulted him, this latter incident was reported (Ex.P/5) by them in the police station.
4. After lodging of report (Ex.P/5), Surendra Singh (PW-1), Yashpal Singh (PW-2) and deceased Bhemendra Singh came back to the village at about 8:00 pm., appellant Adityaraj Singh armed with gun, Mahendra Singh with farsi, co-accused Dhirendra Singh alias Bablu with lathi and co-accused persons Jitendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Brajraj Singh, Keshar Singh and Shyamraj Singh were sitting on the platform near the temple. When complainant party reached the platform near the temple, then appellants and co-accused persons attacked with their weapons and piece of stones. Appellant Adityaraj Singh with an intent to cause death of Bhemendra Singh fired shot with 12 bore gun on his neck. Appellant Mahendra Singh and co-accused Bablu physically assaulted Yashpal Singh (PW-2) on his head and left hand by means of farsi and lathi respectively. Other co-accused persons physically assaulted Surendra Singh (PW-1) on his right wrist and back by means of piece of stones. Injured Bhemendra Singh was taken to the hospital Biaora for treatment where he had died. Police also came to the hospital and lodged a Dehati Nalasi (Ex.P/1) on the same day at 8:50 PM at Biaora hospital on the basis of information given by Surendra Singh (PW-1) against the appellants and co-accused persons. On the basis of Dehati Nalisi, Head Constable Sita Ram (PW-15) lodged an FIR (Ex.P/34) and also lodged a merg intimation report (Ex.P/35).
5. During investigation on 1.4.2011, SI Ghasi Ram (PW-13) after giving notice (Ex.P/2) prepared a lash panchnama (Ex.P/3) and sent the body of deceased for post-mortem through Head Constable Shahzad Khan (PW/12). SHO Virendra Singh Chouhan (PW-16) inspected the place of incident and prepared a spot map (Ex.P/6) at the instance of Yashpal Singh (PW-2).
gpt-4
Minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not undermine the overall credibility of the case, particularly when witnesses have sustained injuries and evidence reflects a disproportionate respon....
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
Eyewitness testimony is crucial in establishing guilt, and the absence of motive does not negate direct evidence in murder cases.
The consistent and trustworthy testimonies of eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
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
