Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G.S.Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
MEENA @ MUNIA @ MUNNI – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
Cri. A. No. 777 of 2011
Decided On : 04-05-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code - [Indian Penal Code, section 302] - The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 302 of the Penal Code and held her not guilty. The judgment and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be provided to the appellant free of cost and the record of the trial court be sent back for necessary information and compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of Kamlesh Nagar, her husband. The prosecution's case was based on witness testimonies and medical evidence indicating injuries sustained by the deceased. The appellant denied her guilt and pleaded not guilty. The defense argued that the prosecution suppressed the original FIR, and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the reliability of witness testimonies and the lack of corroborating medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that an innocent person was falsely implicated. As a result, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under section 302 of the Penal Code and held not guilty. The judgment and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, the suppression of the original FIR, the lack of corroborating medical evidence, and the conduct of the investigation. The court considered these issues in reaching its decision to acquit the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the unreliable witness testimonies, the suppression of the original FIR, the lack of corroborating medical evidence, and the questionable conduct of the investigation as key factors in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 302 of the Penal Code, set aside the judgment and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant if not required in any other case. The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be provided to the appellant free of cost and the record of the trial court be sent back for necessary information and compliance.
JUDGMENT G. S. AHLUWALIA, J. : – This Criminal Appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 6-7-2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Vidisha in S.T. No. 219 of 2010, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default R.I. for 6 months.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 2-5-2010, an information was sent from Distt. Hospital, Vidisha that at 3:30 A.M. in the night, Kamlesh Nagar, who got injured in a fighting was brought in an unconscious condition and he was admitted in Male Surgical Ward and has been referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. Copy of Pre M.L.C. was also sent along with the information. Thereafter, at 7:45 A.M., another information was sent from Distt. Hospital, Vidisha that Kamlesh Gurjar, who had sustained injuries in fighting was brought in a serious condition, therefore, he was referred to Bhopal. The said person has been brought back in a dead condition from Bhopal. Accordingly, the information of death was given to the Police Station.
3. Ku. Hemlata Solanki, posted as A.S.I. prepared the Lash Panchnama after issuing Safina Form. A requisition for post-mortem of the dead body was sent. The statement of Rajendra was taken on the same day. The statement of Lalita bai was also taken on the same day. Spot map was prepared. Blood stained and plain earth was seized from the spot. Accordingly, FIR in crime No. 313/2010 for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant, who is the wife of the deceased Kamlesh Nagar. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to another investigating officer.
4. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by Ram Babu Goswami, Head Constable and he arrested the appellant on 2-5-2010. Her memorandum was recorded. A blood stained stone was recovered which was lying under the dressing table. On 3-5-2010, one bottle was seized on the production of the same by Lalita bai. Police after completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet for offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The trial Court by order dated 20-8-2010 framed charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
6. The appellant, abjured her guilt and pleaded not guilty.
7. The prosecution examined Anguribai (P.W.1), Rajendra (P.W.2), Lalita bai (P.W.3), Pradeep Nagar (P.W.4), Kuldeep Nagar (P.W.5) Janki Prasad Tripathi (P.W.6) Raviraj Singh (P.W.7), Dr. Sudhir Jain (P.W.8), Ku. Hemlata Solanki (P.W.9), Satendra Dubey (P.W.10), Meena (P.W.11), Rambabu Goswami (P.W.12), K. M. Goyal (P.W.13) and S. S. Solanki (P.W.14).
8. The appellant did not examine any witness in her defence.
9. The trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence convicted the appellant for the above mentioned offence.
10. Challenging the impugned judgment, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that although Anguribai (P.W.1) has claimed herself to be an eye-witness, but no FIR was lodged and only information which was given to Dr. Sudhir Jain was that the deceased Kamlesh Nagar has suffered injuries in fighting. The police has suppressed the original FIR. The medical evidence clearly indicates, that the real story has been suppressed by the prosecution. The appellant was residing separately in Bhopal and her case for divorce was pending against Kamlesh Nagar and she has been arrested from Bhopal and not from Vidisha as projected by the prosecution. Further, the complainant Ku. Hemlata Solanki, A.S.I. herself had recorded the FIR. Even the evidence has been created because at the time of initial inspection, the police had not found any stone on the spot.
11. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the prosecution story as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court.
12. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
13. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would l
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of reliable evid....
The court held that the appellant's act of killing the deceased by slashing his neck with a knife fell squarely under Section 300 of the IPC and not under Section 304. This is because Section 300 dea....
The court upheld the trial acquittal due to unreliable eyewitness testimonies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
