Pahalwan Singh @ Chimme, S/o. Mungaram Jatav vs State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Godan District Datia (MP)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Pahalwan Singh @ Chimme, S/o. Mungaram Jatav - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station Godan District Datia (MP) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 73 Of 2004
Decided On : 01-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Jain.
For the Respondent: Shri Lokendra Shrivastava.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 299, and 300 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Murder of two family members - Conviction challenged on grounds of wrongful implication and lack of evidence - Appellant acquitted due to insufficient evidence against him and procedural lapses in investigation. (Paras 1, 5, 50, 60)

(B) Criminal Law - Principles related to culpable homicide and murder as per Sections 299 and 300 IPC - The court ruled that intention or knowledge behind an act must be proven for a murder conviction, emphasizing the necessity for objective evidence to support such claims. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

(C) Evidence - The testimony of eyewitnesses was deemed unreliable due to contradictions and omissions in their statements, leading to questions regarding the appellant's culpability. (Paras 31, 39, 40)

(D) Procedural Violations - The court emphasized the importance of proper investigation protocols to prevent wrongful prosecutions and recommended compensation for false implication of the appellant. (Paras 46, 60)

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and background (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by parties (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis of the evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. application of legal principles (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. explanation of culpable homicide and murder (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. clarification of intent and knowledge in injury cases (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. differentiating types of homicide (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. criteria for murder classification (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. court precedents on interpreting section 300 ipc (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. intention in causing death conclusion (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
11. the significance of medical evidence (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
12. witness testimonies and inconsistencies (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
13. investigation findings and contradictions (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
14. prosecution failure and defense arguments (Para 39 , 40 , 41)
15. court's directive towards investigation and accountability (Para 42 , 43 , 44)
16. further action against investigating officers (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
17. final judgment and acquittal of the appellant (Para 48 , 49 , 50)
18. compensation directive and article 21 implications (Para 51 , 52 , 53)

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.) :

1. The instant Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of CrPC, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Seondha, District Datia in Sessions Trial No. 46/2001, whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC (on two counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.200/-on each count, for committing murder of Brijrani and Chandni, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for two months on each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. It is admitted fact that deceased Brijrani and Chandni were the appellant's mother and daughter respectively and Atar Singh, who lodged the FIR is brother of appellant/accused.

3. The prosecution story in short is that on the date of incident, i.e., on 28.10.2000, Atar Singh (PW-1) lodged oral report in Police Station Godan that he had purchased a Bakhar (house) situated in village Taidot, from Santram Jatav for a consideration of Rs.12000/-. The said amount was paid by Pahalwan Jatav (appellant herein). Battu Jatav and Shobharam, who were residing adjoining to the said house, were interested in purchasing the house because they used to tie their cattle in a portion of the said house. Complainant Atar Singh asked Battu Jatav and Shobharam to vacate the house. Santram, who sold the house, had conveyed that he will get vacated the house. In the morning of 28.10.2000 when Atar Singh was in his house then Laxman Jatav came to his house and informed that Battu Jatav etc. and Pahalwan are quarrelling. At the time of quarrel Pahalwan was residing in the same house. The complainant reached and saw on the place of incident that Brijrani and Chandni, mother and daughter of Pahalwan were lying. Brijrani had already died and Chandni was seriously injured. Battu Jatav and Shobharam were present at the place of incident, Shobharam Jatav was having lathi and Shobharam Jatav committed murder of mother of Pahalwan and also caused head injury to the daughter of Pahalwan. After sometime, Chandni, daughter of Pahalwan died. Brijrani and Chandni were murdered by Battu Jatav and Shobharam Jatav, therefore, because of terror of Battu Jatav and Shobharam, appellant Pahalwan had absonded from the place of incident. On account of that, merg (Ex.P/2) was registered. Spot map (Ex.P/3) was prepared and Lash Panchnama (Ex.P/4 and P/4-B were prepared. Postmortem of the dead bodies of deceased Brijrani and Chandi was conducted at Primary Health Centre, Indergarh. Postmortem report of deceased Brijrani is Ex.P/14 and that of deceased Chandni is Ex. P/15. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. M.M.Shakya (PW-10). Inves