Sohan vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(MP) 377

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Hirdesh, JJ.
Sohan & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1971 of 2014 (Indore): against the judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Dhar in Special Sessions Trial No. 54/09; Decided on 13.9.2023

Advocates:
Vivek Singh for appellant No. 1;
Manohar Singh Chouhan for appellant No. 2; K. K. Tiwari, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) FIR -- tampering in time column -- time of lodging FIR initially written as 18:00 hours -- thereafter it was scored off and written as 6:30 in morning -- complainant accepted that he might have gone to police station around 08:00-08:30 a.m. and after registering FIR, police came with him to spot -- time mentioned on seizure memo as 09:15 -- crime number also mentioned and all other formalities of preparing naksha panchayatnama done before 06:00 p.m. -- post mortem done at 10:50 a.m. -- held -- tampering not done deliberately -- it is just human error. (1994) 5 SCC 188 followed. [Paras 17 to 19
(2) Criminal Trial -- not mandatory for prosecution to examine each and every witness and exhibit all documents. [Para 20
(3) Witness -- contradictions and omissions -- evidence of interested/related witnesses -- examined after 8 months of incident
-- remained unrebutted substantially in cross-examination -- these omissions and contradictions shall not affect substantial part of evidence which is supported by medical evidence. CrLJ 1976, 2017 (2) MPLJ (Cr.) 305, AIR 2019 SC 1058, 1999 (2) JLJ 354 (SC), AIR 2012 SC 1433 and 2002 (2) JLJ 416 followed. ILR [2019] MP 471 relied on. [Para 21
(4) Witness -- chance witness -- evidence of prosecution witnesses intact -- PW-6 denied suggestion that he was not present on spot on date of occurrence -- also denied that he went to house of DW-1 on date of occurrence -- distance from village of DW-1 near about 15 km -- possibility of presence of PW-6 cannot be completely excluded -- evidence of DW-1 not reliable -- not supported by any document -- presence of PW-6 on spot not doubtful -- his evidence not controverted in cross-examination -- his evidence cannot be discarded. (2004) 11 SCC 410 and AIR 1984 SC 63 followed.
[Para 25
(5) Witness -- omission not material -- incident occurred at 4:00 a.m. -- eye witnesses spoke for first time in Court that they had seen occurrence as they were carrying Kissan torch with them -- this fact not mentioned in statement u/s. 161 of CrPC and in FIR -- omission not material -- not necessary that each and every fact is mentioned in FIR and statements u/s. 161 of CrPC -- liability and credibility of witnesses shall not be discarded for this omission. [Para 26
(6) Recovery -- from open place -- crucial question is not whether place was accessible to others or not, but whether it was ordinarily visible to others -- if it is not, then it is immaterial that concealed place is accessible to others -- fact discovered by police with help of disclosure statements and recovery of incriminating articles on strength of such statements is that it was accused who concealed talwar at hidden place -- argument that recovery is not proved as talwar was recovered from open place, has no substance. (1999) 4 SCC 370 followed. [Paras 27 & 28
(7) Recovery -- not matching blood group -- FSL report not sole basis of prosecution case -- corroborating piece of evidence -- as per S. 106 of Evidence Act, it is duty of appellant to disclose how and why human blood was found on sword recovered from him -- appellant unable to rebut this fact in defence -- has not said single word about it in statement u/s. 313 of CrPC -- even if blood group not mentioned in FSL report, same will not help appellant. [Para 32
(8) Recovery -- absence of blood on seized weapon -- sword seized from appellant after long period of incident -- no blood found on sword -- not sent to FSL for scientific investigation -- this fact will not help appellant because eye witnesses gave elaborate evidence against him. [Para 32
(9) Evidence -- same set of evidence -- acquittal of one accused and conviction of another -- other four accused persons acquitted by trial Court though named by all eye witnesses -- case of appellants on identical footing -- judgment of trial Court became final as State did not prefer appeal against their acquittal -- held -- on basis of evidence available on record, this Court satisfied that judgment of conviction passed by trial Court is in accordance with law and facts -- testimony of witnesses cannot be discredited or wiped out only because other co-accused persons are acquitted on same set of evidence. (2005) 7 SCC 749 followed. [Paras 34 to 36
(10) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- prosecution witnesses completely supported prosecution evidence -- their evidence supported by medical evidence -- accused persons unable to rebut evidence against them -- trial Court properly assessed evidence -- rightly convicted and sentenced appellants -- appeal dismissed. 2001 (II) MPWN 142, (1995) 5 SCC 198, (1987) 3 SCC 480, 1996 MPLJ 452, 2014 CrLR (SC) 907, Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 1996, 2014 (2) JLJ 397, 2014 CrLR (SC) 660 and 2023 SCC Online SC 737 referred to. [Paras 37 & 38
¼1½ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ & le; ds LraHk esa NsM+NkM+ & çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ nkf[ky djus dk le; vkjaHk esa 18%00 cts fy[kk x;k & rRi'pkr~ mls dkV dj çkr% 6%30 fy[kk x;k & f'kdk;rdrkZ us Lohdkj fd;k fd og iwokZg yxHkx 08%00&08%30 cts iqfyl Fkkus x;k gksxk rFkk çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ jftLVªh—r djus ds i'pkr~ iqfyl mlds lkFk LFky ij xbZ & vfHkxzg.k Kkiu esa le; 09%15 mfYyf[kr & vijk/k Øekad Hkh mfYyf[kr rFkk uD'kk iapk;rukek rS;kj djus dh vU; lc vkSipkfjdrk,¡ vijkg 06%00 cts ds iwoZ dh xbZa & 'ko ijh{k.k iwokZg 10%50 cts fd;k x;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & NsM+NkM+ tkucw> dj ugha dh xbZ & ;g ekuoh; =qfV ek= gSA ¼1994½ 5 ,l lh lh 188 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17 ls 19½
¼2½ nkafMd fopkj.k & vfHk;kstui{k }kjk çR;sd lk{kh dh ijh{kk dh tkuk rFkk leLr nLrkost çnf'kZr fd, tkuk vkKkid ughaA ¼iSjk 20½
¼3½ lk{kh & fojks/kkHkkl vkSj yksi & fgrc} @ukrsnkj lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; & ?kVuk ds 8 ekl i'pkr~ ijhf{kr & çfrijh{kk esa lkjoku~ :i ls v[kafMr jgs & bu fojks/kkHkklksa vkSj yksiksa ls lk{; dk lkjoku~ Hkkx çHkkfor ugha gksxk- tks fpfdRlh; lk{; ls lefFkZr gSA lhvkj ,y ts 1976- 2017 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 305] , vkb vkj 2019 ,l lh 1058] 1999 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 354 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] , vkb vkj 2012 ,l lh 1433 rFkk 2002 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 416 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½A vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj ¼2019½ ,e ih 471 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 21½
¼4½ lk{kh & la;ksxh lk{kh & vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; v{kq..k & vlkŒ6 us bl lq>ko ls bUdkj fd;k fd ?kVuk ds fnukad dks og LFky ij mifLFkr ugha Fkk & blls Hkh bUdkj fd;k fd ?kVuk ds fnukad dks og çlkŒ1 ds ?kj x;k Fkk & çlkŒ1 ds xzke ls nwjh yxHkx 15 fdŒehŒ & vlkŒ6 dh mifLFkfr dh laHkkouk iw.kZr% vioftZr ugha dh tk ldrh & çlk&1 dk lk{; voyacuh; ugha & fdlh nLrkost ls lefFkZr ugha & LFky ij vlkŒ6 dh mifLFkfr lansgkLin ugha & mldk lk{; çfrijh{kk esa [kafMr ugha & mldk lk{; R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2004½ 11 ,l lh lh 410 rFkk , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 63 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25½
¼5½ lk{kh & yksi rkfRod ugha & ?kVuk iwokZg 4%00 cts ?kVh & çR;{kn'khZ lkf{k;ksa us çFke ckj U;k;ky; esa dgk fd mUgksaus ?kVuk ns[kh Fkh D;ksafd og fdlku V‚pZ fy, Fks & ;g rF; naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 161 ds v/khu dFku rFkk çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr ugha & yksi rkfRod ugha & vko';d ugha fd çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ rFkk naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk ds 161 v/khu dFkuksa esa çR;sd rF; dk mYys[k fd;k tk, & bl yksi ds dkj.k lkf{k;ksa dk nkf;Ro vkSj fo'oluh;rk R;Dr ugha fd, tk,¡xsA ¼iSjk 26½
¼6½ cjkenxh & [kqys LFkku ls & fu.kkZ;d ç'u ;g ugha fd vU; yksx ml LFkku rd igq¡p ldrs Fks ;k ugha] vfirq ;g fd D;k og vU; yksxksa dks lkekU;r% –f"Vxkspj Fkk & ;fn ugha- rks ;g rRoghu gS fd fNis gq, LFkku rd vU; yksx igq¡p ldrs gSa & çdVhdj.k dFkuksa vkSj mu dFkuksa ds cy ij vijk/k esa Q¡lkus okyh oLrqvksa dh cjkenxh dh lgk;rk ls iqfyl }kjk [kkstk x;k rF; ;g fd og vfHk;qä gh Fkk ftlus fNis LFkku ij ryokj fNikbZ Fkh & bl rdZ esa dksbZ lkj ugha fd ryokj [kqys LFkku ls cjken dh xbZ blfy, cjkenxh lkfcr ughaA ¼1999½ 4 ,l lh lh 370 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28½
¼7½ cjkenxh & jä lewg dk feyku ugha djuk & U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dk ,dek= vk/kkj ugha & laiks"kd lk{; & lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 106 ds vuqlkj] ;g çdV djuk vihykFkhZ dk drZO; gS fd mlls cjken ryokj ij ekuo jä dSls vkSj D;ksa ik;k x;k & vihykFkhZ çfrj{kk esa bl rF; dk [kaMu djus esa vleFkZ & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds vèkhu dFku esa bl ckjs esa ,d Hkh 'kCn ugha dgk & U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu esa jä lewg dk mYys[k ugha gks rc Hkh mlls vihykFkhZ dksbZ lgk;rk çkIr ugha gksrhA ¼iSjk 32½
¼8½ cjkenxh & vfHkx`ghr gfFk;kj ij jä dk vHkko & ?kVuk ds i'pkr~ yach vof/k ds mijkar vihykFkhZ ls ryokj vfHkx`ghr & ryokj ij jä ugha ik;k x;k & oSKkfud vUos"k.k ds fy, U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çsf"kr ugha & ;g rF; vihykFkhZ ds fy, lgk;d ugha D;ksafd çR;{kn'khZ lkf{k;ksa us mlds fo:) foLr`r lk{; fn;kA ¼iSjk 32½
¼9½ lk{; & ,d gh lk{; lewg & ,d vfHk;qä dh nks"keqfä rFkk nwljs dh nks"kflf) & lHkh çR;{kn'khZ lkf{k;ksa }kjk ukfer gksus ds ckotwn fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vU; pkj vfHk;qä O;fä;ksa dks nks"keqä fd;k & vihykFkhZx.k dk ekeyk mUgha vk/kkjksa ij & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vafre gks x;k D;ksafd jkT; us mudh nks"keqfä ds fo:) vihy ugha dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij bl U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gksrk gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks"kflf) dk fu.kZ; fof/k vkSj rF;ksa ds vuqlkj gS & lkf{k;ksa ds ifjlk{; ij ek= blfy, vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk vFkok mls ek= blfy, jn~n ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vU; lg&vfHkqä O;fä;ksa dks mlh lk{;&lewg ds vk/kkj ij nks"keqä fd;k x;k gSA ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 749 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34 ls 36½
¼10½ naM lafgrk- 1860 & /kkjk 302 & vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa us vfHk;kstui{k lk{; dk iw.kZ leFkZu fd;k & mudk lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls lefFkZr & vfHk;qä O;fä vius fo:) lk{; dk [kaMu djus esa vleFkZ & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lk{; dk mfpr ewY;kadu fd;k & vihykFkhZx.k dks Bhd gh nks"kfl) vkSj naMkfn"V fd;k & vihy [kkfjtA 2001 ¼2½ e/; Áns'k ohDyh uksV~l 142] ¼1995½ 5 ,l lh lh 198] ¼1987½ 3 ,l lh lh 480] 1996 ,e ih ,y ts 452] 2014 lh vkj ,y vkj ¼,l lh½ 907] 2014 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 397] 2014 lhvkj ,y vkj ¼,l lh½ 660 rFkk 2023 ,l lh lh v‚uykbu ,l lh 737 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 37 ,oa 38½

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Dhar in Special Session Trial No.54/09 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable u/S. 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine one month’s additional R.I.

2. According to the prosecution story in short, PW-1 Balwant lodged a report Ex.P-1 at police station- Sadalpur at 06.30 a.m. stating that he was sleeping in the house with his brother Jagdish PW-2 and father-in-law Shankarlal PW-6 and in early morning at 04.00 a.m. he heard the voice of this father who was sleeping on the Otla (platform) outside of the house and saw that the appellants along with other co-accused persons- Mohan, Kaniram Balai, Babu, Ramchandra, Ghandshyam and Jitendra were assaulting his father (deceased) with swords. He further stated that his brother PW-2 Jagdish, his father-in-law PW-6 Shankarlal and Hariram PW-13 also saw the incident. On the basis of the report of PW-1 Balwant, police registered an F.I.R. After registering the F.I.R. police reached the spot and prepared crime detail form and Laash (dead-body) Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P-7) for sending the body of the deceased for postmortem. The police arrested the accused persons and after taking their statements u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act seized blooded sword (Talwar) from the appellants – Sohan and Radheshyam and recorded the statements of witnesses u/S. 161.

3. After completing the investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the Magistrate and as the case was triable by session Court, the same was transferred to the Court of Sessions.

4. The appellants abjured their guilt and by taking the plea of innocence claimed for trial. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution produced 14 prosecution witnesses. The trial Court also recorded statements of accused u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence also examined four witnesses. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offence as mentioned above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the fact and evidence of the case. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffer from serious infirmity. It is further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Balwant, PW-2 Jagdish and PW- 6 Shankarlal. It is further submitted that nobody has seen the incident and PW-1 saw the body of the deceased after the death. So names of the assailants were not disclosed in initial report nor it has been mentioned that anyone has seen the accused. It is further submitted that district scientific officer gave the report as below :--

ßlwpukdrkZ ds vuqlkj vkt lqcg pkj cts djhcu e`rd vius u;s edku eos'kh dksBs ds lkeus 'ksM esa iyax ij lks;s Fks lqcg pkj cts firkth us vkokt yxkbZ dh csVk lquksjs xkWao ds yksx ekjihV dj jgs gaS rFkk mlds ckn uhps vkdj ns[kk rks firkth ej pqds Fks mlds igys firkth us vijkfèk;ksa ds uke Hkh crk;s FksA fjiksVZ djrk gw¡ dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA^^

6. Learned counsel further submits that if PW-1 Balwant has seen the assailants, he must have disclosed their names before the district scientific officer and it is also stated that the report is anti-timed as explained by PW-5 Budhram Yadav (in-charge control room) in his cross-examination and evidence shows that the deceased alone was sleeping in open place and unknown persons assaulted him and the alleged seized weapons do not connect the appellants with crime and the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story and on the same evidence other accused persons have been acquitted. It is further submitted that the trial Court has also committed error in not relying the testimony