IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Gaurav Pandey & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2016 & Criminal Appeal No. 357 Of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the crime and investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments raised by the appellants (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 3. further arguments and evidence related to the case (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 4. critique of the investigation process (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 5. underlying principles for judgment rendering (Para 75 , 112) |
| 6. final outcome and decision (Para 114) |
JUDGMENT
Sujoy Paul, J. - These appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C) take exception to the judgment dated 10/12/2015 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No.258/2011 whereby appellants were held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation. In addition, appellant Trayambak was held guilty for committing offence under Section 380 of INDIAN PENAL CODE for which sentence of two years (R.I.) and Rs.5000/- was imposed as fine. Both the punishments were directed to run concurrently.
Factual Background :-
2. In short, the story of prosecution is that on 17/01/2011 in Police Station Shahpura, complainant Umesh Saxena lodged a report that he received a phone call at about 2:15 A.M. from her sister-in-law Rani @ Shrutikirti that her father-in-law has been murdered. Complainant Umesh Saxena along with his wife Shashikirti rushed to his father-in-law Bishan Narayan Saxena's house B-155 Shahpur, Bhopal at around 3:00 A.M.
3. The complainant found that deceased is lying on a chair/sofa and there is an injury on backside of his head. The blood is coming out from the wound. The blood stained axe is kept in the adjacent room. The almirah in another room is opened and its material is scattered in the entire room. The complainant lodged a report against unknown person alleging that his father-in-law was murdered by said person. Accordingly, Crime No.47/2011 was registered for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC.
4. The forensic team was called by police to examine the scene of crime. Mr. Sunil Gupta, Scientific Officer of Forensic Department examined the said place and found that deceased was sitting on a sofa and there were two injuries on the back of his head. The blood stains were found on the floor, sofa-set, paijama, kurta and maroon sweater of the deceased. No injury was found on remaining part of body except the head. In store room, the blood stained axe was found.
5. The forensic team prepared a spot map. They collected the blood from floor and from the wound of the deceased. The sample of hairs of deceased, a yellow medicine kept near dining table and blood stained axe were recovered. The Panchayatnama of dead body was prepared. A list of ornaments/materials allegedly looted from scene of crime were prepared. The body of deceased was sent for post-mortem.
6. The post-mortem report shows that reason of death is head injuries caused by hard and sharp object. Deceased Bishan Narayan Saxena died because of shock and excessive bleeding.
7. During the course of investigation, the appellant Gaurav Pandey was arrested and on the basis of his memorandum prepared under Section 27 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT (in short ' EVIDENCE ACT '), a polythene packet containing his blood stained shirt was recovered near Railway Station, Bhopal. Similarly, appellant Trayambak was arrested and pursuant to his memorandum prepared under Section 27 of EVIDENCE ACT , his blood stained clothes were recovered from the house of Avnish. From the shirt, an ATM card of Central Bank was recovered. As per the memorandum of Trayambak, a gold ring was recovered from his friend Chati.
8. During the course of investigation, Sanjeev Ranjan Saxena produced a letter (Article-A) before the Court which
Akil vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 125
Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Anil Phukan vs. State of Assam
Ashok Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1991) 1 SCC 166
Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another
CCE v Jainson Hosiery Industries
Chunthuram vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Common Cause vs. Union of India
Durga Dass vs. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 213
Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand (2012) 9 SCC 532
Ganga Singh vs. State of M.P. (2013) 7 SCC 278)
Gopal Singh vs. State of M.P. (2010) 6 SCC 407 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 150)
Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab
Jaskaran Singh vs. State of Punjab
Javed Masood and another vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 3 SCC 538
Khandu Sonu Dhobi vs. State of Maharashtra (1972) 3 SCC 786
Kishore Bhadke vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) 3 SCC 760
Kishore Chand vs. State of H.P.
Kunju Muhammed vs. State of Kerala
Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another vs. State of Maharashtra
Muni Lal vs. Delhi Admn. (1971) 2 SCC 48
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another vs. State of M.P
Nisar Khan vs. State of Uttaranchal
Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Punjab vs. Sucha Singh
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : For the Appellant : Prakash Upadhyay, Shreyas Pandit
The court emphasized the unreliability of eyewitness testimony from related witnesses, especially when recorded after significant delays, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Testimony of an expert is at best an opinion, which has to be given due weight by Court. Satisfaction arrived at by Court cannot be substituted with opinion of expert.
Statement of single eye witness can form basis for conviction – Such single eyewitness must be of sterling quality.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.