Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 1470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, JJ.
Govind Das & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cr.A. No. 227 of 2010
Decided On : 06-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri Navnidhi Praharya Counsel for the Appellants, for the Appellant; Shri A.P.S. Tomar Counsel for the State, Shri D.S. Rajawat, Counsel for the complainant, for the Respondent

The immediate lodging of the FIR, the presence of a strong motive, and the consistency between ocular and medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. - [302, 34] - The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for the offense under Section 302/34 of IPC and upheld the life imprisonment sentence. The judgment discusses the evidence, including the prosecution's case, medical evidence, and the appellants' defense, and concludes that the appellants are guilty of the offense.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the offense under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. for causing the death of Mohan Singh. The prosecution's case alleged that the appellants and co-accused persons had enmity with the complainant and his family due to a land purchase dispute. The deceased was assaulted by the appellants and co-accused, resulting in his death. The appellants denied their guilt, and the prosecution presented medical and eyewitness evidence to support their case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants had a strong motive to kill the deceased due to a land dispute and a false complaint of rape. The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for the offense under Section 302/34 of IPC and upheld the life imprisonment sentence.
Issues: The key issues included the authenticity of the FIR, the timing of the deceased's death, the correlation between ocular and medical evidence, and the motive behind the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the immediate lodging of the FIR, the presence of a strong motive, and the consistency between ocular and medical evidence to affirm the appellants' guilt and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants, affirmed the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court, and directed the appellant Govind Das to surrender for the remaining jail sentence.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Ahluwalia J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 23-2-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, Distt. Shivpuri in S.T. No.106/2009, by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and have been awarded Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in default 3 months' R.I.

2. It is not out of place to mention here that FIR was lodged against four persons and Balram and Ramjilal were absconding and were arrested on 5-10-2016 and a separate trial was conducted and by judgment and sentence dated 4-4-2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore, Distt. Shivpuri in S.T. No.106/2016, they too have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and have been awarded Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default 6 months' R.I. Balram and Ramjilal have filed Cr.A. No.5079 of 2019, which has also been heard along with this Criminal Appeal.

3. Since, the co-accused Balram and Ramjilal were tried separately and evidence was also recorded afresh and the evidence in the trial of the appellants cannot be read either in favor or against the co-accused Balram and Ramjilal, therefore, their appeal is being decided by a separate judgment.

4. It is not out of place to mention here that on 16-11-2021, the Counsel for the complainant had made a statement that the appellant No.1-Govind Das has expired, accordingly, the State was directed to submit verification report. On 6-12-2021, the matter was taken up and it was found that the State was unable to verify the factum of death of appellant no.1-Govind Das as the neighbour of appellant No.1-Govind Das had informed that Govind Das had already left the village, but it was informed that Govind Das has expired near Jhansi Railway Station. Accordingly, it was verified by the concerning Police Station from Police Station Sipri Bazar, Jhansi as well as GRP, Jhansi, but no information could be gathered. Accordingly, the State was directed to verify from village Simrawari, Ambedkar Nagar, Police Station Babina, Distt. Jhansi as the appellant Ramjilal in connected appeal had stated in his evidence that they had shifted to village Simrawari. Accordingly, fresh verification report was filed which was considered on 22-12-2021 and it was mentioned that no information from village Simrawari, Ambedkar Nagar, Distt. Jhansi could be collected. Accordingly, the Counsel for the appellants was directed to argue on the question as to whether the appeal filed by Appellant No.1-Govind Das can be dismissed as abated or the appeal can be heard on merits on behalf of the Appellant No.1-Govind Das also.

5. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that in absence of authentic verification report, the appeal should not be dismissed as abated and the appeal may be heard on merits, by treating the Appellant No.1-Govind Das as alive. Accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.

6. The prosecution story in short is that on 18-1-2009 at about 11:55, the complainant Krishna Bihari Singh Tomar, came to the Police Station Bhonti, Distt. Shivpuri along with his injured son who was in an unconscious condition and lodged an F.I.R. that about 10- 11 months back, they had purchased land from the nephews of appellant no.1-Govind Das and from the said date, the appellants and co-accused persons were having enmity with the complainant and his family. It was further alleged that today at about 11:30 A.M., the complainant was in his field, whereas his son Mohan Singh was coming to the field. The moment he reached near the field, he was challenged by the appellants. The appellant no.1 was carrying Lathi, whereas appellant no.2-Gudda was having Baka. The accused Balram was having Sword, whereas Ramjilal was having Katar. They asked Mohan Singh to leave the field. In reply, Mohan Singh stated that they have purchased the land. On this issue, the appella