Hemraj Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Achal Kumar Paliwal, JJ.
Hemraj Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 3087 of 2013 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 26.10.2013 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 55/2013;
Decided on 11.9.2023

Advocates:
Anil Sakle for appellant;
Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Recovery -- recovered articles sent belatedly for FSL examination -- neither established from testimony of IO, nor any suggestion given to him that articles sent to FSL were not those which were allegedly recovered, or they were not sent immediately because there was manipulation -- query report, FSL draft, FSL report and recovery memo reveal that seized articles were sealed and seal was intact when they were received in FSL -- cannot be said that delay in sending articles to FSL was intentional or was with oblique purpose – FSL report cannot be discarded on account of delay in sending articles for examination. 2004 (4) MPLJ 543 and 2004 (2) MPLJ 541 distinguished. [Paras 29 & 30
(2) Motive -- day before death of appellant’s wife, appellant sold agricultural land -- also wanted to sell his house along with said land -- after deceased objected to it, appellant agreed not to sell house -- cannot be said that appellant did not have any motive to commit crime. [Para 35
(3) Motive -- case based on testimony of eye witnesses along with other evidence -- even if it is assumed that prosecution failed to prove any motive, still only on ground of absence of motive, it cannot be said that appellant did not commit offence. [Para 36
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 11 -- plea of alibi -- incident occurred inside house of appellant -- no suggestion given to any prosecution witnesses that appellant was not present in his house at time of incident – naksha panchnama, site map, recovery of blood-stained/plain soil from scene of incident and post mortem application/report do not contain appellant’s signature, indicating that these proceedings did not take place in appellant’s presence – appellant being husband of deceased, should have been present during these proceedings and they must have appellant’s signature thereon – no explanation whatsoever with respect to this -- appellant stated u/s. 313 of CrPC that he had gone to temple and when he came back home, his wife was lying in house in injured condition -- no such suggestion given to prosecution witnesses -- no explanation as to why he did not lodge report -- no evidence produced in defence with respect to plea of alibi -- plea of alibi not proved from evidence on record. (2009) 13 SCC 565 distinguished. [Paras 38 to 40
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 84 -- paranoid schizophrenia -- neither established from depositions of witnesses, nor suggestion given to prosecution witnesses that at time of incident/just before incident or just after incident, appellant was being treated for any sort of mental illness/paranoid schizophrenia and he committed offence under effect/influence of/on account of paranoid schizophrenia -- has not stated in examination u/s. 313 of CrPC that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at time of incident -- incident occurred on 19.12.2012 and doctors treated appellant on 9.5.2012, 26.5.2012, from 20.1.2011 to 26.1.2011, on 19.2.2011 and 21.3.2011 -- cannot be said that appellant was under influence of paranoid schizophrenia at time of/on date of incident – appellant has not filed any medical documents to show that he was treated for paranoid schizophrenia immediately after incident -- has taken contradictory defences -- on one hand, he has taken plea of alibi and on other hand, he has taken plea that at time of incident, he was under influence of paranoid schizophrenia and on account of that, he committed murder of his wife -- not established that at time of incident, appellant was under influence of paranoid schizophrenia and he committed murder of his wife on account of/under influence of paranoid schizophrenia. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71, (2002) 7 SCC 748, (2007) 8 SCC 66 and (1970) 3 SCC 533 followed. Cr. A. No. 731 of 2013 decided on 29.6.2018 (Bom.), 2022 SCC Online MP 2027, Cr. A. No. 504 of 2010 decided on 10.12.2021 (Gwalior), Devidas (2018) 7 SCC 718 and AIR 1964 SC 1563 relied on. Cr. A. No. 313 of 2017 decided on 24.10.2019 (Madurai) referred to. [Paras 47, 48 & 52 to 56
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 304 -- not established that any sudden quarrel took place between appellant and his wife at alleged date, time and place and during course of this sudden quarrel, appellant assaulted his wife -- appellant inflicted six stab wounds on deceased -- all wounds/injuries caused by knife on abdomen and upper side of abdomen/breast etc. -- cannot be said that case comes within purview of S. 304 Part I or Part II. (2009) 17 SCC 724, (2008) 9 SCC 707 and (2008) 13 SCC 459 referred to. [Para 59
¼1½ cjkenxh & cjken oLrq,¡ ijh{kk ds fy, U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk foyac ls Hksth xbZ & u rks vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds ifjlk{; ls LFkkfir] vkSj u mls lq>ko gh fn;k x;k fd U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk dks Hksth xbZa oLrq,¡ og ugha Fkha tks vfHkdfFkr :i ls cjken dh xbZ Fkha] vFkok mUgsa vfoyac blfy, ugha Hkstk x;k fd dksbZ Nylk/ku fd;k x;k Fkk & ç'u çfrosnu] U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çk:i] U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu vkSj cjkenxh Kkiu ls çdV fd vfHkx`ghr oLrq,¡ eqgjcan dh xbZ Fkh rFkk tc mUgsa U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk esa çkIr fd;k x;k rc eqgj v{kq..k Fkh & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd oLrq,¡ U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk Hkstus esa gqvk foyac lk'k; Fkk ;k ijks{k ç;kstu ls Fkk & ijh{kk ds fy, oLrq,¡ foyac ls Hkstus ds dkj.k U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu dks R;ä ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2004 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 543 rFkk 2004 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 541 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 29 ,oa 30½
¼2½ gsrq & vihykFkhZ dh iRuh dh e`R;q ds ,d fnu iwoZ vihykFkhZ us Ñf"k Hkwfe foØ; dh & mDr Hkwfe ds lkFk viuk edku Hkh foØ; djuk pkgrk Fkk & e`rdk }kjk ml ij vkifÙk fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ vihykFkhZ edku foØ; ugha djus dks lger gks x;k & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ ds ikl vijk/k djus dk dksbZ gsrq ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 35½
¼3½ gsrq & ekeyk vU; lk{; ds lkFk çR;{kn'khZ lkf{k;ksa ds ifjlk{; ij vkèkkfjr & ;g /kkj.kk djus ij Hkh fd vfHk;kstui{k dksbZ Hkh gsrq lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk] gsrq dh vfo|ekurk ek= ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ us vijk/k ugha fd;kA ¼iSjk 36½
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e- 1872 & /kkjk 11 & vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ & ?kVuk vihykFkhZ ds ?kj ds Hkhrj ?kVh & vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dks dksbZ lq>ko ugha fn;k x;k fd ?kVuk ds le; vihykFkhZ ?kj ij mifLFkr ugha Fkk & uD'kk iapukek- LFky ekufp=] ?kVukLFky ls jDrjaftrlknk ekVh dh cjkenxh vkSj 'ko ijh{kk vkosnu çfrosnu ij vihykFkhZ dk gLrk{kj ugha] ftlls minf'kZr fd ;g dk;Zokfg;‚a vihykFkhZ dh mifLFkfr esa ugha gqbZa & e`rdk dk ifr gksus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ dks bu dk;Zokfg;ksa ds nkSjku mifLFkr gksuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk bu ij vihykFkhZ dk gLrk{kj gksuk gh pkfg, Fkk & bl ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh Li"Vhdj.k ugha & vihykFkhZ us naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu dFku fd;k fd og eafnj x;k Fkk vkSj tc og ?kj ykSVk rks mldh iRuh ?kj esa fo{kr voLFkk esa iM+h Fkh & vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dks ,slk dksbZ lq>ko ugha fn;k x;k & bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fd mlus fjiksVZ D;ksa nkf[ky ugha dh & çfrj{kk esa vU;= gksus ds vfHkokd~ ds ckjs esa dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha fd;k & vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ vfHkys[kxr lk{; ls lkfcr ughaA ¼2009½ 13 ,l lh lh 565 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 38 ls 40½
¼5½ naM lafgrk- 1860 & /kkjk 302 rFkk 84 & iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k & u rks lkf{k;ksa ds vfHklk{; ls LFkkfir] vkSj u vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dks lq>ko gh fn;k x;k fd ?kVuk ds le;@?kVuk ds rqjar igys ;k ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ vihykFkhZ dk fdlh çdkj ds ekufld jksx@iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds fy, mipkj py jgk Fkk rFkk mlus iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds çHkko esa@vlj esa@ds dkj.k vijkèk fd;k & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu ijh{kk esa ugha dgk fd ?kVuk ds le; og iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ls xzLr Fkk & ?kVuk 19-12-2012 dks ?kVh rFkk fpfdRldksa us vihykFkhZ dk mipkj 9-5-2012 dks] 26-5-2012 dks] 20-1-2011 ls 26-1-2011 rd 19-2-2011 dks rFkk 21-3-2011 dks fd;k & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ?kVuk ds le;@fnukad dks vihykFkhZ iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds çHkko esa Fkk & vihykFkhZ us ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dksbZ fpfdRlh; nLrkost çLrqr ugha fd;k fd ?kVuk ds rqjar i'pkr~ iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds fy, mldk mipkj fd;k x;k & ijLijfojks/kh çfrj{kk yh & ,d vksj mlus vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ fd;k rFkk nwljh vksj mlus vfHkokd~ fd;k fd ?kVuk ds le; og iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds çHkko esa Fkk vkSj ml dkj.k mlus viuh iRuh dh gR;k dh & LFkkfir ugha fd ?kVuk ds le; vihykFkhZ iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds çHkko esa Fkk vkSj mlus iSjku‚bM f'ktksÝhfu;k ds dkj.k@ds çHkko esa viuh iRuh dh gR;k dhA 2023 ykbo y‚ ¼,l lh½ 71] ¼2002½ 7 ,l lh lh 748] ¼2007½ 8 ,l lh lh 66 rFkk ¼1970½ 3 ,l lh lh 533 vuqlfjrA nkafMd vihy Øekad 731 lu~ 2013 fu.khZr fnukad 29-6-2018 ¼cacbZ½] 2022 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,e ih 2027] nkafMd vihy Øekad 504 lu~ 2010 fu.khZr fnukad 10-12-2021 ¼Xokfy;j½] ¼2018½ 7 ,l lh lh 718 rFkk , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1563 voyafcrA nkafMd vihy Øekad 313 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 24-10-2019 ¼enqjS½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 47] 48 ,oa 52 ls 56½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 rFkk 304 & LFkkfir ugha fd vfHkdfFkr fnukad le; vkSj LFkku ij vihykFkhZ vkSj mldh iRuh ds e/; vpkud >xM+k gqvk rFkk ,sls vpkud gq, >xM+s ds nkSjku vihykFkhZ us viuh iRuh ij geyk fd;k & vihykFkhZ us e`rdk dks Ng os/ku {kfr;‚a igq¡pkbZ & lHkh ?kko@{kfr;‚a mnj vkSj mnj ds Åijh Hkkx@o{k vkfn ij pkdw ls dkfjr & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ekeyk /kkjk 304 Hkkx 1 vFkok Hkkx 2 dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gSA ¼2009½ 17 ,l lh lh 724] ¼2008½ 9 ,l lh lh 707 rFkk ¼2008½ 13 ,l lh lh 459 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 59½

JUDGMENT

1. 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 26.10.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.55/2013 by learned Sessions Judge, Khandwa, whereby the appellant was held guilty for committing an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC”) and directed to undergo sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution story in brief is that on 19.12.2012, complainant Shiv Pal Singh (PW-1) lodged a report at the Police Outpost Padamnagar, Police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa to the effect that on 19.12.2012 at about 10.30 in the morning, complainant was at his shop, when women of the house told on mobile to come home immediately. Thereafter, he reached the house and persons present at the spot told him that a fight is going on between Hemraj and Deepmala inside the house. Then, he reached near their house, sound of screaming was heard inside. He entered the house and saw that Hemraj was assaulting his wife with knife and he ran, in the meantime, Suraj Bai (PW-2) also came from behind. Hemraj assaulted Deepmala with the intention to kill him and Hemraj has murdered Deepmala. On the basis of above information, I.O. Sher Singh Bahgel (PW-10) registered F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) under section 302 of IPC against accused Hemraj. Thereafter, it was sent to Police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa for registration and thereupon Head Constable Komal More (PW-5) registered F.I.R./Crime No.592/2012 Ex.P-9.

3. Head Constable Shyambihari (PW-9) registered Marg (Ex.P-17) on the basis of Tehrir presented by Ward Boy of District Hospital. During investigation, I.O. Sher Singh Bahgel (PW-10) prepared naksha panchayatnama (Ex.P-2) and recovered blood stained soil and plain soil from the scene of incident vide recovery memo (Ex.P-5). Dr. Bijay Singh Makwama (PW-8) conducted post mortem and prepared report (Ex.P-15). Head Constable Suresh Dabar (PW-6) seized deceased’s sealed clothes on being presented by Constable Sunil from hospital vide seizure memo Ex.P-10. During investing, I.O. Sher Singh Bahgel (PW-10) recorded statements of witnesses and arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.P-15. Thereafter, he interrogated accused and prepared memorandum Ex.P-13 and thereafter, in pursuance of above memorandum, he recovered a knife and blood stained clothes of accused, after the accused presented the same, vide recovery memo Ex.P-14. During investigation, he also sent knife for query to concerned medical officer vide query memo Ex.P-16 and thereupon Dr. Bijay Singh (Pw-8) furnished his opinion vide Ex.P-16A. Investigating Officer also recovered agreement Ex.P-18 vide recovery memo Ex.P19. The recovered articles were sent to FSL vide FSL draft Ex.P-20 and FSL report is Ex.C-1. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Khandwa and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. The trial Court framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty & he claimed to be tried for the aforesaid offence. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses. The prosecution also brought on record documentary evidence through aforesaid witnesses.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, appellant was examined u/s 313 of CrPC. The appellant pleaded total denial & also stated that Suraj Bai is his neighbour & on account of that, there was dispute & animosity between them & therefore, she has deposed falsely & remaining witnesses deposes falsely on account of being wife’s relatives. Appellant has also stated therein that he had gone to the temple before the incident. When he came back home from the temple, his wife was lying in the house in injured condition, door of the house was half open, seeing his wife’s condition, he shouted, then, people came. He is innocent