Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 493
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sujoy Paul, Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
DEEPAK BELDAR s/o BHAGWAN DAS – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal No. 1079 of 2015
Decided On : 04-07-2022
The main legal point established in the judgment is that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony and the absence of a strong motive do not weaken the prosecution's case, and related witnesses cannot be equated with interested witnesses.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Appeal against conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code - 374(2) Cr.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code - Section 302
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased. The prosecution's case was based on the eyewitness account of Sewantibai and other witnesses, as well as the recovery of the knife allegedly used in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitness account of Sewantibai and other witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable, despite minor discrepancies in the number of injuries. The court also held that the recovery of the knife from a concealed location and the absence of a strong motive did not weaken the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the recovery of the weapon, the presence of a motive, and the interpretation of the injuries caused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony and the absence of a strong motive did not weaken the prosecution's case. The court also highlighted the principle that related witnesses cannot be equated with interested witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was upheld.
JUDGMENT : – This is an appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short “Cr.P.C) against the judgment dated 28-2-2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 58/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and directed to undergo sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default stipulation.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND : – 2. The story of prosecution is that on 17-5-2011 at around 6 p.m., in village Gahal Khedi road, the appellant assaulted deceased Sewantibai by means of a knife thereby causing multiple injuries because of which she died on the same day.
3. As per the said story, on 17-5-2011, the deceased Sewantibai with her sister-in-law Sewantibai went to Khedi road which was outside the village Gahal Khedi for attending the natural call. Both of them were sitting together for the said purpose by maintaining some distance. In the meantime, the appellant Deepak Beldar came there and caught hand of deceased Sewantibai with oblique motive and tried to take her to nearby agricultural field. In order to save her, complainant Sewantibai shouted and tried to save her. The appellant caused 2-3 knife injuries on the chest of deceased Sewantibai. Out of fear, complainant Sewantibai came running to her house shouting about the incident. The complainant narrated the entire incident to her husband Poonam and brother-in-law Bhagwandas and Ram. The said persons reached to the place of incident and brought Sewantibai to the residence. At that point of time, Sewantibai was unconscious and was profusely bleeding. She was taken to Harda hospital by calling a Jeep from Dagawashankar. In the hospital, deceased Sewantibai was declared as dead. Consequently, in Police Station Rahatgaon, Crime No. 105/2011 under section 302 read with 354 of Indian Penal Code was registered. During investigation, the statement of witnesses were recorded and certain materials were seized. The appellant was arrested. The challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Harda which on committal came for trial before the Sessions Court.
4. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. His statement was recorded. On behalf of prosecution, statements of Mangilal (PW-1), Bhagwan Singh (PW-2), Smt. Laxmi Bai (PW-4), Pinaki More (PW-5), Ramu (PW-6), Shankarlal (PW-7), Gopal (PW-8), Smt. Sewantibai (PW-9), Poonam (PW-10), Vinod Kumar Ikka (PW-11), Dr. Bharat Katker (PW-12), Lalsingh Patel (PW-13), Ajay Tiwari (PW-14), Dr. Rajesh Mithoriya (PW-15), A. L. Chowkikar (PW-16), R.D. Berman (PW-17) and Rakesh Kumar Gaur (PW-18) were recorded. In turn, appellant in his defence statement recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code denied the allegations and projected himself to be an innocent person. However, no defence witness was produced by him.
5. The trial Court framed three questions and decided the same by the impugned judgment dated 28-2-2015.
SUBMISSIONS : – 6. Shri K. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of honour killing. The appellant had love affair with the deceased. A day before the death of deceased, she was married against her wish with Roshan. The appellant and deceased decided to leave the village together and live separately. The family members of the deceased came to know about this plan and, therefore, decided to murder the deceased. The appellant has been falsely arraigned in the matter by the family members of deceased.
7. To bolster the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant submits that sole eye witness is Sewantibai (PW-9). Her statement shows that from the place where she went with deceased Sewantibai to attend the call of nature, only one pot was recovered. She in her dehati nalisi (Ex.P/2) and in her Court’s statement stated that appellant caused three injuries on the chest of the deceased by means of a knife. However, postmortem report shows that nine injuries were found on the person of the decease
