Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Suresh S/o Patram – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 2012
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT: S.32
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.294, S.302, S.304 PART I, S.307, S.323, S.324, S.325, S.34, S.506, S.506(b)
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Dying declaration - Police statement of deceased ruled inadmissible due to lack of fitness certificate despite being recorded moments before hospital treatment; however, injured witness' testimony held credible. (Paras 30-36)
(C) Criminal Jurisprudence - Eyewitness testimony - Injured witness enjoys special status, presuming truthfulness unless substantial contradictions arise. (Paras 38-48)
Facts of the case:
On 10-3-2010, the complainant and his wife were attacked by the appellants in a field with an iron rod and a lathi, resulting in severe injuries; the complainant survived while his wife succumbed to her injuries. (Paras 1-3, 18-19)
Findings of Court:
The evidence of the injured witness and corroborating testimony confirmed the homicidal nature of the death, substantiating the conviction for murder not amounting to culpable homicide. (Paras 65-66)
Issues: Determination of witness credibility, admissibility of dying declaration, and distinction between murder and culpable homicide discussed. (Paras 58-64)
Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for murder affirmed based on credible eyewitness accounts, with the Court emphasizing the special status of injured witnesses; nuance established regarding dying declarations and necessity for medical fitness certification. (Paras 46-48)
Result: Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences upheld.
Shri Ashok Kumar Jain- Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal details and prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of injuries and medical evidence. (Para 7 , 12 , 18) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant regarding witness credibility. (Para 8 , 9 , 54 , 58) |
| 4. court's consideration of evidence and intention. (Para 11 , 15 , 63) |
| 5. final decision of the court and order. (Para 66 , 68 , 72) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 28-12-2011 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in S.T. No.196 of 2010 by which the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
| Convicted under Section | Sentence |
| 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- with default imprisonment of 1 year R.I. |
| 307 of IPC | Ten years R.I. and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 1 year R.I. |
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Mahesh (Injured eye-witness) along with his injured wife Bhagwati, lodged a Dehati Nalishi in 108 Ambulance to the effect that on 10-3-2010 at about 5 P.M., he was cutting his gram crop in his field. At that time, the appellant Suresh and Devendra, who were armed with iron rod and lathi respectively, came there and scolded the complainant as to why he has falsely alleged against them about theft of crop. When the complainant disputed the allegation, then both the appellants assaulted him on his both legs, as a result, his both legs were broken. He also suffered injuries on his both hands. When his wife Bhagwati tried to intervene in the matter, She too was assaulted by Suresh on her head by an iron rod. Devendra broke both of her legs by assaulting her by lathi. She also sustained injuries above her eye-brows. The incident was witnessed by Atmadas, Kriparam, Kamal Kishore, Anand etc. On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR was lodged. Both the injured were sent for medical examination. During treatment, Bhagwati lost her life. Merg intimation was recorded. MLCs of Bhagwati and Mahesh were obtained. Post- mortem of dead body of Bhagwati was got done. Safina form was issued and lash Panchnama was prepared. Spot map was prepared. Blood stained, plain earth, gents and ladies chappals, broken pieces of bangles etc were seized from the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
The appellants were arrested and iron rod and lathi were seized. The seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar. FSL report was obtained. The copy of FIR was sent to concerning Magistrate. Police after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet for offence under Sections 302 , 307, 325, 294, 323, 324, 506 and 34 of IPC.
3. The Trial Court by order dated 13-7-2010, framed charges under Sections 307 /34 and 302/34 of IPC.
4. The Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
5. The prosecution examined Mahesh (P.W.1), Shyam Sundar Sharma (P.W.2), Kriparam (P.W.3), Rakesh (P.W.4), Munesh Kumar (P.W.5), Anand (P.W.6), Veer Singh (P.W.7), Lakhvinder Singh (P.W.8), Heera Singh Chauhan (P.W.9), Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.10), Dr. Nikhil Agrawal (P.W.11) and K.P.S. Chauhan (P.W. 12).
6. The Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
7. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence has convicted and sentenced the Appellants for the above mentioned offences.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellants that driver of 108 Ambulance has not been examined. Kotwar, who had called the ambulance, has not supported the prosecution case. The entire case is based on the evidence of Mahesh (P.W.1) who is an interested witness. Even assuming that the allegations are true, it is clear that the act of the Appellants would make out an offence under Section 304 PART I of IPC.
9. Per contra, the Counsel for
