Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Ravi Malimath, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Ramesh And Three Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 339/2000
Decided On : 10-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri R.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel with Shri M.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for appellants, for the Appellant; Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, for the Respondent

The absence of a motive does not diminish the significance of direct evidence, and minor discrepancies in witness statements do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302, Section 34, Section 323 - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, the medical report, and the investigation findings. The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the minor discrepancies in the witnesses' statements did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The court also emphasized that the absence of a motive does not diminish the significance of direct evidence. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC as well as the conviction & sentence of appellant No.1-Ramesh under Section 323 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased was assaulted by the appellants near Ahmadpur Square, resulting in his death. The prosecution presented evidence from witnesses, postmortem report, and investigation findings. The appellants appealed on the grounds of lack of independent witnesses, absence of motive, and alleged discrepancies in the FIR.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the minor discrepancies in the witnesses' statements did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The court also emphasized that the absence of a motive does not diminish the significance of direct evidence. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC as well as the conviction & sentence of appellant No.1-Ramesh under Section 323 of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, absence of motive, and alleged discrepancies in the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor discrepancies in witness statements and the absence of a motive do not diminish the significance of direct evidence. The court also highlighted the principle that the absence of a motive is of no consequence when direct evidence establishes the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC as well as the conviction & sentence of appellant No.1-Ramesh under Section 323 of IPC were affirmed.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J. - This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C assails the judgment dated 17.04.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha in Special Case No. 69/98, whereby, appellants- Santosh, Ramesh, Pappu and Gabbar have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and appellant No.1-Ramesh has further been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that on 07.05.1998 at about 11:00 AM near Ahmadpur Square, present appellants i.e. Ramesh and his sons Santosh and Pappu @ Gajendra and son of landlord Gabbar, assaulted the deceased Laxminaran by means of gupti and katarna. When the family members of the deceased came to rescue the deceased, appellant Ramesh assaulted complainant/Tulsiram with lathi, due to which he sustained injury on his right leg. Afterwards, the present appellants ran away from the spot. Complainant Tulsiram took deceased- Laxminarayan in injured condition to the hospital and on the way, the deceased died.

3. In hospital, at about 11:45 AM, father of the deceased Tulsiram lodged Dehati Nalisi vide Ex.P/1 and on the basis of which, Merg under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and Crime No. 94/98 was also registered under Sections 302, 34 and 323 of IPC. Panchnama of the dead-body was prepared vide Ex.P/11 and dead body was sent for postmortem.

4. Dr. R.C. Sonkar (PW-1) conducted postmortem of the dead- body of the deceased. During postmortem, he found injuries on neck, left parietal region on the head, right side of chest, in between thumb and index finger, knee and fifteen incised wounds on left wrist and hand, a stab wound near lungs, a stab wound on stomach and a stab wound on left shoulder of the deceased vide his report Ex.P/0. As per his opinion, injuries No.1, 4 and 7 were sufficient to cause death. The death was caused within 6-8 hours from the postmortem. The cause of death was shock and syncope leading to cardio respiratory failure as a result of haemorrhage and cutting of blood vessels. Death was homicidal in nature.

5. During investigation, spot map was prepared and from the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and accused persons were arrested on 08.05.1998. According to the information given by the accused persons, Lathi, katarna and Gupti were seized by the Police Authorities. Thereafter, all the seized articles, plain and blood stained soil and clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/16 and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.P/17. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court.

6. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.

7. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined thirteen witnesses and appellants in their defence examined one witness. The trial Court after marshalling the evidence came on record, convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

8. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. No motive is proved. FIR is ante-dated and there is no compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. The name of appellant No.4 Gabbar @ Manohar was also not mentioned in the FIR.

9. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Complainant- Tulsiram (PW-2) has stated that deceased Laxminarayan was his son. Before one year at about 11:00 AM when his son- Laxminarayan was standing outside, appellant No.1-Ramesh carrying lathi, appellant No.2-San