Kamod Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ.
Kamod Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1495 of 2015 (Jabalpur): against the judgment passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in Sessions Trial No. 227/2012;
Decided on 24.2.2023

Advocates:
Siddhant Kochar for appellant;
A. N. Gupta, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Evidence -- same set of evidence -- acquittal of one accused and conviction of another -- cannot be said as straitjacket formula that in no case, one accused person can be held guilty when other coaccused persons were exonerated on basis of same set of evidence -- litmus test is whether theory of separating wheat from grain can be pressed into service -- if answer is in affirmative and sifting is possible, certainly one accused person’s case can be segregated and he can be punished if evidence is otherwise creditworthy. (2002) 6 SCC 81, AIR 1965 SC 277, (1975) 4 SCC 511, (1976) 1 SCC 20 and (2019) 8 SCC 342 followed. [Para 43
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- same set of evidence -- acquittal of one accused and conviction of another -- appellant alleged to be carrying iron rod -- iron rod indeed recovered from him -- as per complainant, appellant assaulted deceased with rod on his head -- corroborated by medical evidence -- injury caused by iron rod sufficient in normal course to cause death -- role of appellant can be segregated. AIR 1965 SC 277, (1975) 4 SCC 511, (1976) 1 SCC 20 and (2019) 8 SCC 342 distinguished. [Para 46
(3) Evidence -- same set of evidence -- acquittal of one accused and conviction of another -- prejudice -- this does not cause any prejudice to accused person who is convicted -- it depends on facts and circumstances and nature of evidence available against particular accused person.(2019) 8 SCC 342 referred to. [Para 47
(4) Witness -- allegedly took injured father to hospital when father was profusely bleeding -- contention of accused that blood of father must have stained clothes of witness -- non-recovery of blood stained clothes -- oral evidence corroborated by medical evidence -- non-recovery of blood stained clothes will not have any adverse impact on credibility of prosecution story.(2011) 9 SCC 115, (2013) 12 SCC 746, (2003) 8 SCC 666 and (2013) 14 SCC 420 followed. (2001) 3 SCC 147 referred to. [Para 48
(5) Witness -- complainant/witness deposed that he disclosed names of assailants to police before post mortem -- no name mentioned in post mortem complaint -- effect -- cause of death mentioned in said document as ‘murder’ -- Dehati Nalishi recorded promptly contains names of accused persons -- nonmentioning names of accused persons in post-mortem complaint will not cause any dent on prosecution story. 2022 SCC Online MP 1419 referred to.
[Paras 14 & 49
(6) Witness -- unnatural conduct -- human behaviour cannot be measured on any golden scale -- in danger, response may vary from person to person -- one may be courageous enough to reach place of incident immediately and interfere in matter, whereas another may hide to save himself. Cr. A. No. 119 of 2016 distinguished. [Para 54
(7) Witness -- contradictions regarding place of incident -- place of occurrence same as per nazri naksha and spot map -- witness named different place -- Court below gave plausible finding that witness was not resident of that village therefore he is not expected to narrate place of incident with mathematical accuracy -- he is signatory to nazri naksha -- it cannot be said that prosecution failed to establish spot of occurrence. 2019 SCC Online All. 4307 distinguished. [Para 55
(8) Recovery -- from open space -- iron rod recovered from appellant -- recovery does not become doubtful merely because it was recovered from open place. (1994) 4 SCC 370 followed.
[Para 56
(9) Recovery -- matching of blood group -- human blood found on iron rod recovered from appellant -- on being confronted by FSL report, he gave evasive reply -- absence of justifiable explanation -- existence of human blood certainly relevant incriminating circumstance. 2023 (1) JLJ 21 (SC) = AIR 2021 SC 4031 and (2019) 7 SCC 781 followed. [Para 57
(10)Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 32 -- non-recording of dying declaration -- family member badly injured -- first attempt of other family members will be to provide immediate medical aid -- non-recording of dying declaration does not have any adverse impact. [Para 60
(11)Criminal Trial -- not producing malkhana register in Court will not vitiated story of prosecution. [Para 61
(12)Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 304 Pt. I -- incident took place suddenly -- prosecution could not establish premeditation -- appellant caused single injury -- intention not established -- conviction deserves to be modified to S. 304 Pt. I. [Para 62
¼1½ lk{; && ,d gh lk{;&lewg && ,d vfÒ;qä dh n¨"keqfä rFkk nwljs dh n¨"kflf) && vifjorZuh; lw= d¢ :i esa ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd tc ,d gh lk{;&lewg d¢ vkèkkj ij vU; lg&vfÒ;qä O;fä foeqä fd, x, g¨a r¨ ,d vfÒ;qä O;fä d¨ fdlh Òh n'kk esa n¨"kh vfÒfuèkkZfjr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && dl©Vh ;g gS fd D;k Òwls ls vukt fudkyus d¢ fl)kar dk ykÒ fy;k tk ldrk gS && ;fn mÙkj ldkjkRed gS rFkk chuuk laÒo gS r¨ fuf'pr gh ,d vfÒ;qä O;fä dk ekeyk i`Fkd~ fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk ;fn lk{; vU;Fkk fo'okl ;¨X; gS r¨ mls nafMr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2002½ 6 ,l lh lh 81] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 277¼1975½ 4 ,l lh lh 511] ¼1976½ 1 ,l lh lh 20 rFkk ¼2019½ 8 ,l lh lh 342 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 43
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 302 && ,d gh lk{;&lewg && ,d vfÒ;qä dh n¨"keqfä rFkk nwljs dh n¨"kflf) && vfÒdfFkr fd vihykFkÊ y¨gs dk lfj;k fy, Fkk && y¨gs dk lfj;k okLro esa mlls cjken fd;k x;k && f'kdk;rdrkZ d¢ vuqlkj] vihykFkÊ us lfj;s ls e`rd d¢ flj ij geyk fd;k && fpfdRlh; lk{; ls laiq"V && y¨gs d¢ lfj;s ls dkfjr {kfr lkekU; vuqØe esa e`R;q dkfjr djus d¢ fy, i;kZIr && vihykFkÊ dh Òwfedk i`Fkd~ dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 277] ¼1975½ 4 ,l lh lh 511] ¼1976½ 1 ,l lh lh 20 rFkk ¼2019½ 8 ,l lh lh 342 çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 46
¼3½ lk{; && ,d gh lk{; && ,d vfÒ;qä dh n¨"keqfä rFkk nwljs dh n¨"kflf) && çfrdwy çÒko && blls ml vfÒ;qä O;fä ij d¨Ã çfrdwy çÒko ugÈ iM+rk ftls fl)n¨"k Bgjk;k x;k gS && ;g rF;¨a v©j ifjfLFkfr;¨a ij rFkk ml fof'k"B vfÒ;qä O;fä d¢ fo#) miyCèk lk{; dh çÑfr ij fuÒZj djrk gSA ¼2019½ 8 ,l lh lh 342 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 47
¼4½ lk{kh && vfÒdfFkr :ils tc firk d¨ vfr'k; jäJko g¨ jgk Fkk rc firk d¨ fpfdRlky; ys x;k && vfÒ;qä dk ladFku fd lk{kh d¢ oó¨a ij vo'; gh firk d¢ jä d¢ èkCcs yxs g¨axs && jäjaftr oó¨a dh cjkenxh ugÈ dh tkuk && e©f[kd lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls laiq"V && jäjaftr oó¨a dh cjkenxh ugÈ g¨us ls vfÒ;¨tu dgkuh dh fo'oluh;rk ij d¨Ã çfrdwy çÒko ugÈ iM+sxkA ¼2011½ 9 ,l lh lh 115] ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 746] ¼2003½ 8 ,l lh lh 666 rFkk ¼2013½ 14 ,l lh lh 420 vuqlfjrA ¼2001½ 3 ,l lh lh 147 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 48
¼5½ lk{kh && f'kdk;rdrkZ@lk{kh us vfÒlk{; fn;k fd 'ko ijh{k.k d¢ iwoZ mlus iqfyl d¨ geykoj¨a d¢ uke çdV fd, Fks && 'ko ijh{k.k f'kdk;r esa fdlh uke dk mYys[k ugÈ && çÒko && mä nLrkost esa e`R;q dk dkj.k ^gR;k^ mfYyf[kr && vfoyac vfÒfyf[kr nsgkrh ukfy'kh esa vfÒ;qä O;fä;¨a d¢ uke lekfo"V && 'ko ijh{k.k f'kdk;r esa vfÒ;qä O;fä;¨a d¢ uke¨a dk mYys[k ugÈ fd, tkus ls vfÒ;¨tui{k dh dgkuh d¨ d¨Ã vkÄkr ugÈ igq¡psxkA 2022 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,e ih 1419 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 49
¼6½ lk{kh && vLokÒkfod vkpj.k && ekuo O;ogkj d¨ fdlh Lof.kZe rqyk ij ugÈ r©yk tk ldrk && ladV esa vyx&vyx O;fä dh çfrfØ;k vyx&vyx g¨ ldrh gS && d¨Ã bruk lkglh g¨ ldrk gS fd ÄVukLFky ij rqjar igq¡p dj ekeys esa gLr{ksi djs] tcfd nwljk Lo;a dh j{kk d¢ fy, Nqi ldrk gSA nkafMd vihy Ø- 119 lu~ 2016 çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 54
¼7½ lk{kh && ÄVukLFky d¢ ckjs esa foj¨èkkÒkl && ut+jh uD'kk rFkk LFky ekufp= d¢ vuqlkj ÄVuk dk LFky ,d&gh && lk{kh us fÒUu LFkku dk uke fy;k && fupys U;k;ky; us laÒkO; fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd lk{kh ml xzke dk fuoklh ugÈ Fkk blfy, mlls ;g çR;kf'kr ugÈ fd xf.krh; lVhdrk ls ÄVukLFky crk, && og ut+jh uD'ks dk gLrk{kjdrkZ gS && ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd vfÒ;¨tui{k ÄVukLFky fl) djus esa vlQy jgkA 2019 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu byk- 4307 çÒsfnrA ¼iSjk 55
¼8½ cjkenxh && [kqys LFkku ls && vihykFkÊ ls y¨gs dk lfj;k cjken && cjkenxh ek= blfy, lafnXèk ugÈ g¨ tkrh fd og [kqys LFkku ls cjken fd;k x;kA ¼1994½ 4 ,l lh lh 370 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 56
¼9½ cjkenxh && jä lewg dk feyku && vihykFkÊ ls cjken y¨gs d¢ lfj;s ij ekuo jä ik;k x;k && U;k;kyf;d ç;¨x'kkyk d¢ çfrosnu ls lkeuk djk, tkus ij mlus x¨ye¨y mÙkj fn;k && mfpr Li"Vhdj.k dk vÒko && ekuo jä dh fo|ekurk fuf'pr :i ls lqlaxr vijkèk esa Q¡lkus okyh ifjfLFkfr gSA 2023 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 21 ¼mPpre U;k-½ ¾ , vkb vkj 2021 ,l lh 4031 rFkk ¼2019½ 7 ,l lh lh 781 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 57
¼10½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 && èkkjk 32 && e`R;qdkfyd dFku vfÒfyf[kr ugÈ djuk && dqVqac dk lnL; cqjh rjg Äk;y && dqVqac d¢ vU; lnL;¨a dh çFke ps"Vk vfoyac fpfdRlh; lgk;rk miyCèk djkus dh g¨xh && e`R;qdkfyd dFku vfÒfyf[kr ugÈ djus dk d¨Ã çfrdwy çÒko ugÈ g¨xkA ¼iSjk 60
¼11½ nkafMd fopkj.k && U;k;ky; esa eky[kkuk jftLVj is'k ugÈ djus ls vfÒ;¨tui{k dh dgkuh nwf"kr ugÈ g¨xhA ¼iSjk 61
¼12½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && èkkjk 302 rFkk 304 Òkx 1 && ÄVuk vpkud ÄVh && vfÒ;¨tui{k iwoZfparu fl) ugÈ dj ldk && vihykFkÊ us d¢oy ,d {kfrdkfjr dh && vk'k; fl) ugÈ && n¨"kflf) èkkjk 304 Òkx 1 esa mikarfjr fd, tkus ;¨X;A ¼iSjk 62

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”) assails the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.227/2012 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur whereby the appellant was held guilty for committing offence under section 302 of IPC and directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine and with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution story shows that Rambhola (PW-10) lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/11) on 20/05/2012 stating that he resides in village Dhingasara. There was a quarrel between his father Kehar Singh and accused persons Kamod and Lalsahab. The quarrel had taken place an year ago relating to purchase of a cow. The accused persons abused his father and had animosity with him.

3. On 20.5.2012, he along with his father Kehar Singh was going towards village Kheri in order to give some money to Ramnarayan Paliya. His father was moving ahead and he was following his father by keeping some distance. When his father reached in front of house of Narbadiya Kalar, Bhaiyaji Gujar caught hold of his father, accused Kamod Singh assaulted his father on his head by means of an iron rod. His father fell down. Sahablal and Kamod again assaulted his father by means of lathi and rod. Kamod said that Kehar Singh has died and thereafter crushed the body of Kehar Singh by an auto rickshaw and fled away. Rambhola (PW-10) had seen this incident and immediately informed younger brother Bablu, Ramnarayan Paliya and Bhagwansingh Rajput. After getting help from said persons, he took his father to Salichauka Hospital but Doctor declared him as dead. His father was carrying Rs.80,000/- which were not found by the complainant.

4. The investigation was conducted by Anil Ajmeriya (PW-14). The dead body was send for autopsy. Lash Panchayatnama (Ex.P/15) was prepared. Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW-5) conducted the post-mortem and prepared the report Ex.P/8. As many as 10 injuries were found on the person of deceased. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage.

5. Mr. P. L. Vasnik (PW-15) prepared Nazri Naksha (Ex.P/10). Plain soil, blood stained soil and left leg’s shoe of deceased was recovered through Ex.P/9. Case diary statement of Bablu, Manoj and Rambhola were recorded. The incriminating material were send to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). In turn, report of FSL (Ex.P/19) was received.

6. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. In due course, after committal, the matter reached to the Sessions Court. The accused persons abjured their guilt. Trial was conducted. In total, 15 prosecution witnesses entered the witness box whereas Ashok S/o Chandan Singh’s (DW-1) testimony was recorded. The Court below framed three issues for its determination. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the impugned judgment dated 10.4.2015 has been passed which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

Contention of Appellant :

7. Shri Siddhant Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the story of prosecution, three accused persons simultaneously assaulted Kehar Singh and he succumbed to the injuries. The Court below acquitted the remaining two accused persons and held the present appellant alone as guilty. This finding of Court below is founded upon the testimony of son of deceased i.e. Rambhola (PW-10). Rambhola is the solitary eye-witness against all the accused persons. Considering the similar evidence, the other persons have been acquitted and appellant alone has been held guilty.

8. By placing reliance on AIR 1965 SC 277 (Ugar Ahir and Ors. v. State of Bihar), (1975) 4 SCC 511 (Balaka Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab), (1976) 1 SCC 20 (Bhagirath v. State of M.P.) and (2019) 8 SCC 342 (R. Jayapal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.), it is urged that where it is not possible to separate the truth from falsehood and sift grain and chaff, it is impermissible to pick up and choose one accused person as guilty and acquit