Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vijay Kumar Shukla and Hirdesh, JJ.
Vijay @ Pappu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of 2014 (Indore): against the judgment dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.179/2011; Decided on 8.5.2024
(1) Advocate -- duty of defence lawyer -- contradictions and omissions -- it is the duty of defence lawyer to prove that contradictions and omissions can hit root of case. [Para 17]
(2) Evidence -- contradictions and omissions -- not hitting root of case -- not material. [Para 17]
(3) Witness -- contradictions and omissions -- witnesses examined after lapse of about one year of incident -- not rebutted substantially in cross-examination -- some omissions and contradictions in their evidence, but in lengthy cross-examination some omissions and contradictions may come. 1999 (2) JLJ 354 (SC), Taqdir 2012 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) = 2011 (10) SCC 158 and 2014 Law Suit (SC) 516 followed. [Para 17]
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 60 -- Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 313 -- allegation of murdering father -- PW-1 is mother of accused/appellant and wife of deceased -- not proper to reject one or other evidence on ground of certain contradictions and omissions which did not go to root of case -- PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5 completely supported prosecution evidence -- their evidence supported by medical evidence and FSL report -- accused/appellant accepted in examination u/s. 313 of CrPC that he was present on spot at time of incident -- unable to rebut evidence given against him -- appellant is guilty. [Paras 18, 23 & 24]
(5) Witness -- contradictions and omissions -- testimony of witnesses cannot be wiped out on basis of trivial contradictions. [Para 18]
(6) Witness -- contradictions and omissions -- witness stated in FIR that she was present in house -- in oath evidence, she stated that she was coming from grocery shop -- she is mother of accused/appellant and wife of deceased -- clearly supported prosecution version -- appellant admitted that at time of incident, he was present on spot along with deceased -- contradiction does not hit root of case. (2005) 7 SCC 749 followed. [Paras 19 & 20]
(7) Legal Maxim -- falsus in uno falsus in omnibus -- has no application in India. (2005) 7 SCC 749 followed. [Para 19]
(8) Witness -- hostile witness -- conviction cannot be set aside merely because prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. 2024 LiveLaw SC 358 followed. [Para 20]
(9) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 106 -- burden of proof -- human blood found on shirt, pyjama and iron pestle recovered from appellant -- it is duty of appellant to disclose how and why human blood was there -- appellant unable to rebut this fact in defence -- not a single word stated about it in statement u/s. 313 of CrPC -- held -- non-mention of blood group in FSL report will not help appellant. [Para 21]
(10) Recovery -- not matching blood group -- it is duty of appellant to disclose how and why human blood was found on shirt, pyjama and iron pestle recovered from appellant -- appellant unable to rebut this fact in defence -- not a single word stated about it in statement u/s. 313 of CrPC -- held -- even if blood group is not mentioned in FSL report, it will not help appellant. [Para 21]
(11) Motive -- lack of motive -- when there is eye-witness to prove offence, prosecution not bound to prove motive of offence. [Para 22]
¼1½ vf/koäk & çfrj{kk odhy dk drZO; & fojks/kkHkkl rFkk yksi & ;g lkfcr djuk çfrj{kk odhy dk drZO; gS fd fojks/kkHkklksa vkSj yksiksa ls çdj.k ds ewy ij vk?kkr ugha igq¡prkA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ lk{; & fojks/kkHkkl rFkk yksi & çdj.k ds ewy ij vk?kkr ugha igq¡prk & rkfRod ughaA ¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ lk{kh & fojks/kkHkkl rFkk yksi & ?kVuk ds mijkar yxHkx ,d o"kZ O;rhr gksus ij lk{khx.k ijhf{kr & çfrijh{kk esa lkjr% [kafMr ugha & muds lk{; esa dqN yksi vkSj fojks/kkHkkl] ijarq yach çfrijh{kk esa dqN yksi vkSj fojks/kkHkkl vk ldrs gSaA 1999 ¼2½ ts,yts 354 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ 2012 ¼1½ ,eih,yts ¼fØŒ½ ¾ 2011 ¼10½ ,llhlh 158 rFkk 2014 y‚ lwV ¼,llh½ 516 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 -- /kkjk 302 & lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 60 & naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 313 & firk dh gR;k djus dk vfHkdFku & vlkŒ 1 vfHk;qä@vihykFkhZ dh ekrk gS vkSj e`rd dh iRuh & fdlh Hkh lk{; dks ,sls fdUgha fojks/kkHkklksa rFkk yksiksa ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt djuk mfpr ugha tks çdj.k ds ewy rd ugha tkrs & vlkŒ 1] vlkŒ 3 vkSj vlkŒ 5 us vfHk;kstu lk{; dk iw.kZr% leFkZu fd;k & mudk lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; vkSj U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu ls lefFkZr & vfHk;qä@vihykFkhZ us naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 313 ds v/khu ijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k fd ?kVuk ds le; og ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr Fkk & vius fo:) fn, x, lk{; dk [kaMu ugha dj ldk & vihykFkhZ nks"kh gSA ¼iSjk 18] 23 ,oa 24½
¼5½ lk{kh & fojks/kkHkkl rFkk yksi -- lk{khx.k dk ifjlk{; rqPN fojks/kkHkklksa ds vk/kkj ij feVrk ughaA ¼iSjk 18½
¼6½ lk{kh & fojks/kkHkkl rFkk yksi & lk{kh us çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa dgk fd og ?kj esa mifLFkr Fkh & l'kiFk lk{; esa mlus dgk fd og fdjkus dh nqdku ls vk jgh Fkh & og vfHk;qä@vihykFkhZ dh ekrk gS vkSj e`rd dh iRuh & vfHk;kstu o`Ùkkar dk Li"Vr% leFkZu fd;k & vihykFkhZ us Lohdkj fd;k fd ?kVuk ds le; og e`rd ds lkFk ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr Fkk & fojks/kkHkkl ls çdj.k ds ewy ij vk?kkr ugha igq¡prkA ¼2005½ 7 ,llhlh 749 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20½
¼7½ fof/kd lw= & ,d ckr esa feF;k rks lc esa feF;k & Hkkjr esa ykxw ugha gksrkA ¼2005½ 7 ,llhlh 749 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19½
¼8½ lk{kh & i{kæksgh lk{kh & nks"kflf) ek= bl dkj.k vikLr ugha dh tk ldrh fd vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k i{kæksgh gks x, gSaA 2024 ykboy‚ ,llh 358 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20½
¼9½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 106 & lcwr dk Hkkj & vihykFkhZ ls cjken deht] ik;tkek vkSj yksgs ds ewly ij ekuo jä ik;k x;k & ;g crkuk vihykFkhZ dk drZO; gS fd ogk¡ ekuo jä dSls vkSj D;ksa Fkk & vihykFkhZ çfrj{kk esa bl rF; dk [kaMu djus esa vleFkZ & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds vèkhu dFku esa bl ckjs esa ,d Hkh 'kCn ugha dgk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu esa jä lewg dk mYys[k ugha gksus ls vihykFkhZ dks dksbZ lgk;rk çkIr ugha gksrhA ¼iSjk 21½
¼10½ cjkenxh & jä lewg dk feyku ugha djuk & ;g crkuk vihykFkhZ dk drZO; gS fd vihykFkhZ ls cjken deht] ik;tkek vkSj yksgs ds ewly ij ekuo jä dSls vkSj D;ksa ik;k x;k & vihykFkhZ çfrj{kk esa bl rF; dk [kaMu djus esa vleFkZ & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu dFku esa bl ckjs esa ,d Hkh 'kCn ugha dgk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk çfrosnu esa jä lewg dk mYys[k ugha gks rc Hkh blls vihykFkhZ dks dksbZ lgk;rk çkIr ugha gksrhA ¼iSjk 21½
¼11½ gsrq & gsrq dk vHkko & vijk/k lkfcr djus ds fy, çR;{kn'khZ lk{kh gks rks vfHk;kstui{k vijk/k dk gsrq lkfcr djus dks vkc) ughaA ¼iSjk 22½
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal has been filed preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.05.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.179/11 whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine of RS.500/- and in default of payment of fine, three months’ additional imprisonment.
2. According to prosecution story, PW-1 Vidhyabai and her husband deceased Omprakash and accused Vijay @ Pappu were residing together in house No.780, Dwarikarpuri, Indore. On 23.11.2010 when PW-1 Vidhyabai was sitting in the house, the appellant came with iron pestle (Moosli) and asked his father Omprakash “why have you not got my marriage solemnized yet” and thereafter, he assaulted the deceased and killed him. When PW-1 cried then PW-2 Vijay Kumar and PW-3 Tarun came and caught the appellant. PW-1 Vidhyabai lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 Merg intimation Ex.P-18 and police registered F.I.R. on the basis of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-13 under section 302 of IPC against the appellant.
3. During investigation, police prepared spot map Ex.P-2 and seized blooded cotton, plain cotton and blooded bed-sheet from the spot and issued Safina Form Ex.P-4 for preparing dead-body Naksha Panchayatnama and then sent body of the deceased to hospital for postmortem. During investigation, police arrested the appellant and seized blooded Moosli which was used in committing the offence, blooded shit and trouser (Paijaama) of appellant and prepared seizure memo and after this sent it to FSL for examination. Police recorded statements of prosecution witnesses and after receipt of FSL report and completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the magistrate Court. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, trial Court framed charges against the appellant and appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial.
4. In turn, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 10 witnesses and after completion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined u/S. 313 of Cr.P.C. The appellant took defence that he has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the offence. No witness was examined in defence. Trial Court considered the evidence adduced before him and came to conclusion that appellant is guilty of committing offence as mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the fact and evidence of the case. The evidence led by the prosecution witnesses suffer from serious infirmity. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further submits that prosecution is unable to adduce any motive of offence committed by the appellant and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution story. He further submits that trial Court has committed error in not relying upon the defence of the appellant and prays for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The first question arises before this Court, whether the death of deceased Omprakash is homicidal or not?
9. PW-10 P.S. Gore, inspector has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 23.11.2010, he was posted as Sub-inspector at Chandan Nagar Police Station, Indore. On this date, PW-1 Vidhyabai lodged F.I.R. against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. He issued Safina Form notice to the witnesses for preparing dead-body Naksha Panchayatnama of the deceased in presence of witnesses. PW-9 Dr. Bharat Bajpayee conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased Omprakash and noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased.
^^PkksV Øekad 1 & nkuksa vk¡[ksa pksfVy gksdj dkyh iM+ x;h FkhaA
pksV Øekad 2 & ,d QVk gqvk ?kko 4 xq.kk 1 xq.kk vk/kk lsŒe
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Eyewitness testimony holds credibility even when minor contradictions exist; motive for crime established through related witness accounts legitimizes conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of motive and unreliable witness testimonies undermine conviction.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC requires reliable evidence beyond hearsay; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The evidentiary value of hostile witnesses can support the prosecution case if found credible, notwithstanding the non-recovery of weapons or procedural lapses.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and medical evidence in cases of direct evidence, and the diminished significance of motive in such cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
