Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 80
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Vivek Jain, JJ.
Bhuru v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2011 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 7.3.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Harda, District Harda in Sessions Trial No.22/2011; Decided on 9.2.2024
Madan Singh for appellant;
A. N. Gupta, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302 and 304 Pt. I -- appellant chopped off his wife’s left hand and left leg by means of daranta -- she succumbed to injuries on same day -- eye-witness real sister of appellant -- her deposition clear and explicit -- no amount of cross-examination could cause any dent on her statement -- culpability can be determined on basis of her statement -- no scintilla of doubt that appellant and appellant alone caused multiple injuries resulting in death of his wife -- but no injury was caused on any vital part of body -- if appellant intended to cause death, he could have attacked vital part of her body -- it cannot be said that he had any intention to cause death -- conviction altered to one u/s. 304 Part-I with modified sentence of 10 years. (1976) 4 SCC 362, (1993) 3 SCC 32, (1998) 1 SCC 526 and (2006) 10 SCC 635 followed. 2021 SCC Online MP 3393, 2005 SCC Online MP 382 and 2018 SCC Online MP 1700 relied on. (2022) 6 SCC 592, 2022 (4) JLJ 489 and Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2016 decided on 21.8.2023 distinguished. (2017) 13 SCC 481, (2018) AIISCR (Cr.) 509 and AIR 2013 SC 2454 discussed. 2005 (4) MPLJ 292 referred to. [Paras 12 to 14, 24 & 25]
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 rFkk 304 Hkkx 1 & vihykFkhZ us njkars ls viuh iRuh dk ck;a gkFk vkSj ck;‚a iSj dkV fn;k & {kfr;ksa ls mldh mlh fnu e`R;q gks xbZ & çR;{kn'khZ lk{kh vihykFkhZ dh lxh cgu & mldk vfHklk{; çkaty vkSj eq[kj & fdruh Hkh çfrijh{kk ls mlds dFku dks vk?kkr ugha igq¡pk & mlds dFku ds vk/kkj ij nksf"krk vo/kkfjr dh tk ldrh gS & ys'kek= lansg ugha fd vihykFkhZ] vkSj ek= vihykFkhZ us gh vusdkusd {kfr;‚a dkfjr dh ftuds ifj.kkeLo:i mldh iRuh dh e`R;q gqbZ & ijarq dksbZ Hkh {kfr 'kjhj ds fdlh Hkh ekfeZd vax ij ugha igq¡pkbZ xbZ & vihykFkhZ dk vk'k; e`R;q dkfjr djus dk gksrk rks og mlds 'kjhj ds ekfeZd vax ij okj dj ldrk Fkk & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mldk e`R;q dkfjr djus dk dksbZ vk'k; Fkk & nks"kflf) 10 o"kZ ds mikarfjr naMkns'k ds lkFk] /kkjk 304 Hkkx 1 ds v/khu nks"kflf) esa ifjofrZrA ¼1976½ 4 ,llhlh 362] ¼1993½ 3 ,llhlh 32] ¼1998½ 1 ,llhlh 526 rFkk ¼2006½ 10 ,llhlh 635 vuqlfjrA 2021 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 3393] 2005 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 382 rFkk 2018 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 1700 voyafcrA ¼2022½ 6 ,llhlh 592] 2022 ¼4½ ts,yts 489 rFkk nkafMd vihy Ø- 505 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 21-8-2023 çHksfnrA ¼2017½ 13 ,llhlh 481] ¼2018½ ,vkbvkb,llhvkj ¼fØŒ½ 509 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2013 ,llh 2454 foosfprA 2005 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 292 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12 ls 14] 24 ,oa 25½
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal filed under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the judgment dated 7.3.2011 passed in Session Trial No.22/2011 by learned Sessions Judge Harda, Distt. Harda whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced.
2. The appellant faced trial for murdering his wife Laxmi Bai on 13.12.2010. The accusation against the appellant was that his marriage was solemnized with deceased Laxmi Bai an year before the date of incident i.e.13.12.2010. Both were labourers. A quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife because appellant-husband had doubt about the conduct of the wife. Because of said quarrel, the wife went back to her maternal house at village Mirzapur. It was the case of the prosecution that on 13.12.2010 at about 2:00 pm he reached his inlaws’ house where his wife Laxmi Bai was residing. The appellant was allegedly carrying Palwa Katne Ka Daranta. The appellant inquired from sister-in-law of his wife about his wife. She informed that Laxmi Bai is inside the house. The appellant entered the said room where Laxmi Bai was available and caused injuries by means of Daranta and chopped her left hand from the elbow and the left leg. Phoolwati Bai (PW-8) initially caught hold of appellant but he could fled away from the place of incident. Phoolwati (PW-8) took help of her mother and brother and took Laxmi Bai to Harda. On the basis of report of Laxmi Bai Crime No. 528/2010 under section 307, 506 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of treatment, Laxmi Bai succumbed to injuries on 13.12.2010. The postmortem of Laxmi Bai was carried out and appellant was arrested. The weapon used in commission of crime and his clothes were recovered. The seized material was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Bhopal.
3. After completion of investigation, chalan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate which was committed to the Sessions Court. In sessions case No. 22/2011, proceedings commenced. The appellant abjured the guilt.
4. The Court below framed three questions for its determination, recorded statements of 10 prosecution witnesses and examined 19 documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19.
5. After hearing the parties, the judgment dated 7.3.2011 was passed whereby appellant was held guilty for committing offence under section 302 of IPC and directed to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and under section 450 of IPC sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. This judgment is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
Contention of appellant :
6. Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant faintly submitted that the prosecution could not establish the presence of appellant at Mirzapur in the house of parents of Laxmi Bai. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the statement of Sushila Bai (PW-3). An effort was made to show that when incident had taken place, Sushila Bai (PW-3) was taking bath. Thus, she is a hearsay witness who narrated the incident on the basis of information received from her daughter-in-law Phoolwati Bai.
7. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had no intention to cause death of his wife. He caused injuries in sudden impulse. Both the injuries were caused on non-vital parts of the body. Thus, in the light of following judgments the conviction may be altered to one under section 304 Part-I / II of IPC :
(i) Subhash v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 592,
(ii) Prakash Kumar Mewari v. The State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 1996) dated 14.11.2022.
(iii) Sunita Bai Behni v. The State of M.P.. (Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2016) dated 21.08.2023.
(iv) Shahajan Ali and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2017) 13 SCC 481.
(v) Laljibhai Maganbhai Vasava v. State of Gujarat reported in (2018) AIISCR(Crl)509.
(vi) Alam Khan and Anr. v. State of M.P. reported in 2005(4) MPLJ 292.
