Monu Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Monu Sharma & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.A. No. 938 of 2010 with Cr.A. No. 940 of 2010 with Cr.A. No. 1031 of 2010
Decided On : 31-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Pradeep Katare, Counsel for the Appellants in Cr.A. No. 938 of 2010, Shri R.K. Sharma, Senior Counsel with Shri V.K. Agrawal for Appellants in Cr.A. No. 940 of 2010, Shri Prashant Sharma, Counsel for Appellant in Cr.A. No. 1031 of 2010, for the Appellant; Shri R.K. Awasthy, Counsel for the State, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 302, 307, 323 read with 149 - Criminal Appeals involving convictions of multiple accused for murder and related charges - The trial court convicted the appellants for murder based on witness testimonies and medical evidence supporting the commission of the crime. The appellants challenged their convictions citing related witness biases and contradictions in testimonies. The High Court found that prosecution failed to prove certain charges against some accused while upholding the conviction of Rajesh for murder, based on credible eyewitness accounts. (Paras 3, 90, 119)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - The related nature of witnesses does not negate their reliability unless proven biased. The court clarified the difference between 'related' and 'interested' witnesses, emphasizing that relationship alone does not impair credibility if their accounts remain consistent. (Paras 80, 86)

(C) Medical Evidence vs. Eyewitness Accounts - In instances of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, ocular evidence is favored unless medical evidence entirely negates it. (Paras 67, 88)

(D) Common Object and Intent - Distinguishing between common object under Section 149 IPC and common intention under Section 34 IPC in assessing liability for joint acts. The judgment emphasizes a careful segregation of evidence to ascertain reliable verdicts. (Paras 38, 45, 50)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the acquittal of some appellants while affirming the life sentence of Rajesh for the murders, citing strong evidence against him.

Result: Appeals of Monu Sharma, Sonu Sharma, Kamlesh, Pejram, and Mahesh @ Pappu allowed; Appeal of Rajesh dismissed and his conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. common appeals and context of co-accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of the case and incident details. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defendants' counsel argues on witness credibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 56)
4. questioning eyewitness reliability and allegations. (Para 20 , 21 , 33 , 39)
5. final judgment on acquittals and convictions. (Para 119 , 120)

JUDGMENT

G.S. Ahluwalia J. - By this common Judgment, Cr.A.s No. 938 of 2010, filed by Monu Sharma and Sonu Sharma, Cr.A. No. 940 of 2010 filed by Kamlesh, Pejram and Mahesh @ Pappu and Cr.A. No. 1031 of 2010 filed by Rajesh shall be decided.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that co-accused Kallu @ Brajesh Sharma, was absconding and was arrested at a later stage and was tried separately. He too has filed his Cr.A. No. 710/2012, and the said appeal has also been heard simultaneously. However, the said appeal shall be decided by separate Judgment, as evidence led in the Trial of the co-accused has to be appreciated independently. It is also not out of place to mention here that co-accused Bablesh was also convicted and had filed Cr.A.No. 951/2010, but he died during the pendency of the appeal and accordingly, by order dated 15-12-2016, his appeal was dismissed as abated.

3. The three Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 30-10-2010 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T. No. 181 of 2009 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 148 of IPC	2 years R.I.
Under Section 302 /149 of IPC on two counts	Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default 1 year R.I.
Under Section 307/149 of IPC	7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default 3 months R.I.
Under Section 323 /149 of IPC on three counts	6 months R.I.

4. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Kaptan Singh, lodged a Dehati Nalishi on 27-4-2008, at about 15:00, on the allegations that at about 10:00 A.M., his uncle Darru Singh was beaten by Ramautar, Neeraj, Santosh, Guddu, Pejram, Rajesh, Sonu, Monu, Kamlesh and Mahesh, all residents of Gauram and Kallu Brahmin, Balu Brahmin and Moni, all residents of Bilav, on the question of fetching water from the hand-pump, and his utensils were thrown. They had also extended a threat to leave the village. Thereafter, his uncle came to his house and informed the entire incident and was taking rest under a Neem Tree. On that issue, at about 1:30 A.M., Ramautar with .12 bore double barrel gun, Neeraj with .315 bore Adhiya, Santosh with Mouser gun, Guddu with .315 bore Adhiya, Pejram with .12 bore double barrel gun, Rajesh with .315 bore gun, Sonu with .12 bore single barrel gun, Monu with Mouse, Kamlesh with .12 bore single barrel gun, Mahesh with Mouser, Kallu with licensed Mouser, Ballu with .12 bore gun, Moni with .315 bore pistol came near to the house with an intention to attack. They started abusing. Thereafter, the complainant, Rai Singh, Ravindra, Dilip, Prem Singh, Shyamveer requested them with folded hands not to behave in such a manner, but they did not stop. Rajesh and Kallu fired gun shots. Gun shot fired by Kallu hit Rai Singh on his ribs whereas gun shot fired by Rajesh hit in abdominal region of Ravindra as a result, both of them fell down and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, all the accused persons started firing indiscriminately causing injuries on shoulder of Prem Singh, thumb of Dilip Singh, and on the back side of the shoulder of Shyamveer Singh. Rai Singh and Ravindra have expired.

5. On this information, the police registered FIR in crime No. 10/2008 for offence under Sections 147 ,148,149,294,302 of IPC. The dead bodies of the deceased Rai Singh and Ravindra Singh were sent for post-mortem. The spot map was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellants were arrested and after completing the investigation, police filed charge sheet for offence under Sections 302 ,147,148,149,294 of IPC.

6. The Trial Court by order dated 8-