Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Hirdesh, JJ.
Puran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2015 (Gwalior): against the judgment and sentence dated 3.8.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 177/2014; Decided on 5.9.2024
(1) Witness -- related witness -- examined after five months of incident -- some minor omissions and contradictions in evidence -- it cannot be discarded on this sole ground -- minor contradictions and omissions shall not affect substantial part of evidence as witnesses remained unrebutted substantially in each and every part of their evidence, which is duly supported by medical evidence. (1999) 2 JLJ 354 relied on. 2019 ILR (MP) 471, AIR 1977 SC 472, 2017 (2) MPLJ (Cr.) 305 and AIR 2019 SC 1058 referred to. [Para 8]
(2) Witness -- related witness -- minor contradiction between police statement and Court statement -- witness stated that she was sleeping near her father; when accused came and assaulted on neck of her father, she shouted for her chacha and tau -- evidence of this witness does not appear to be unnatural and doubtful. [Para 8]
(3) Investigation -- defective investigation -- Court has to be circumspect in evaluating evidence -- it would not be right to acquit accused person solely on account of defect -- to do so would tantamount to playing into hands of Investigating Officer if investigation is designedly defective -- direct testimony of eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence fully establishes prosecution version -- failure or omission or negligence on part of Investigating Officer cannot affect credibility of prosecution version. AIR 2004 SC 1920 followed. [Para 8]
(4) Investigation -- delay in recording evidence -- not a single question put to Investigating Officer during trial as to why evidence of prosecution witnesses was taken after delay of about five months -- no prejudice caused to appellant -- delay inconsequential. [Para 8]
(5) Motive -- absence -- prosecution case based on direct evidence -- absence of motive not of any special importance -- nor can prosecution evidence be considered unreliable. [Para 8]
(6) Recovery -- no mention in seizure memo that blood was found on axe -- in FSL report, human blood was found -- same will not render any assistance to appellant as all witnesses have elaborately supported prosecution case. [Para 8]
(7) Plea of Alibi -- should be proved by defence evidence -- appellant/accused did not take this defence u/s. 313 of CrPC -- no question asked in this regard to any witness other than Investigating Officer -- possibility of accused being at some other place at time of incident or incident being committed by some other person proved to be completely baseless -- plea of alibi must be proved with certainty so as to completely excluded. (1984) 1 SCC 446 followed. [Para 8]
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 299 and 300 -- intent and knowledge -- culpable homicide is genus and murder is species -- all murders are culpable homicide, but not vice versa -- culpable homicide sans special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- first and second clauses of S. 299 refer to intention apart from knowledge -- third clause refers to knowledge alone and not intention -- expressions “intent” and “knowledge” postulate existence of positive mental attitude which is of different degrees -- mental element in culpable homicide is one of intention and knowledge -- fact that death of a human being is caused is not enough unless one of the mental states mentioned in ingredients of S. 299 is present -- nature of offence does not only depend upon location of injury caused on person of deceased, the intention is to be gathered from all facts and circumstances of case -- intention is question of fact which is to be gathered from act of party. (2006) 12 SCC 613 followed. [Para 8]
(9) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- appellant caused injury on vital part of deceased, i.e., neck by axe which is a sharp-edged object -- prosecution able to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt -- ocular evidence fully corroborated by medical evidence -- it is crystal clear that appellant intended to commit murder -- prosecution witnesses fully supported prosecution evidence -- trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing appellant-accused. [Paras 9 & 10]
¼1½ lk{kh & ukrsnkj lk{kh & ?kVuk ds ikap ekl i'pkr~ ijhf{kr & lk{; esa dqN xkS.k yksi vkSj fojks/kkHkkl & mls bl vk/kkj ek= ij R;ä ugha fd;k tk ldrk & xkS.k yksiksa vkSj fojks/kkHkklksa ls lk{; dk lkjHkwr Hkkx çHkkfor ugha gksxk D;ksafd lk{khx.k vius lk{; ds çR;sd va'k esa lkjoku~ :i ls v[kafMr jgs] tks fpfdRlh; lk{; }kjk lE;d~:is.k lefFkZr gSA ¼1999½ 2 ts,yts 354 voyafcrA 2019 vkb,yvkj ¼,eih½ 471] ,vkbvkj 1977 ,llh 472] 2017 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 305 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2019 ,llh 1058 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8½
¼2½ lk{kh & ukrsnkj lk{kh & iqfyl dFku vkSj U;k;ky; dFku esa xkS.k fojkèkkHkkl & lk{kh dk dFku fd og vius firk ds lehi lks jgh Fkh tc vfHk;qä us vkdj mlds firk dh xnZu ij geyk fd;k rks mlus vius pkpk vkSj rkÅ dks iqdkjk & bl lk{kh dk lk{; vLokHkkfod vkSj lafnX/k çrhr ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 8½
¼3½ vUos"k.k & =qfViw.kZ vUos"k.k & lk{; dk ewY;kadu djus esa U;k;ky; dks pkSdUuk jguk gksrk gS & ek= =qfV ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qä O;fä dks nks"keqä djuk lgh ugha gksxk & ;fn vUos"k.k tkucw>dj =qfViw.kZ fd;k x;k gS rks ,slk djuk vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds gkFkksa dh dBiqryh cuuk gksxk & fpfdRlh; lk{; ls laiq"V çR;{kn'khZ lk{khx.k ds çR;{k ifjlk{; ls vfHk;kstu o`Ùkkar iw.kZr% LFkkfir & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh vlQyrk ;k yksi ;k mis{kk ls vfHk;kstu o`Ùkkar dh fo'oluh;rk çHkkfor ugha gks ldrhA ,vkbvkj 2004 ,llh 1920 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½
¼4½ vUos"k.k & lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus esa foyac & fopkj.k ds nkSjku vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ls bl ckjs esa ,d Hkh ç'u ugha iwNk x;k fd vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; yxHkx ikap ekl ds foyac ds i'pkr~ D;ksa fy;k x;k & vihykFkhZ ij dksbZ çfrdwy çHkko ugha iM+k & foyac egRoghuA ¼iSjk 8½
¼5½ gsrq & vHkko & vfHk;kstu i{kdFku çR;{k lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & gsrq ds vHkko dk dksbZ fo'ks"k egRo ugha & u gh vfHk;kstu lk{; vuoyauh; ekuk tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 8½
¼6½ cjkenxh & vfHkxzg.k Kkiu esa dksbZ mYYks[k ugha fd dqYgkM+h ij jä ik;k x;k & U;k;kyf;d ç;ksx'kkyk ds çfrosnu esa ekuo jä ik;k x;k & blls vihykFkhZ dks dksbZ lgk;rk çkIr ugha gksxh D;ksafd lHkh lkf{k;ksa us vfHk;kstu i{kdFku dk foLrkj ls leFkZu fd;kA ¼iSjk 8½
¼7½ vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ & çfrj{kk lk{; ls lkfcr fd;k tkuk pkfg, & vihykFkhZ vfHk;qä us naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu ;g çfrj{kk ugha yh & vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh ds vfrfjä vU; fdlh lk{kh ls bl ckjs esa ç'u ugha fd;k x;k & ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qä ds fdlh vU; LFkku ij gksus dh vFkok ?kVuk fdlh vU; O;fä }kjk ?kVuk dkfjr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk iw.kZr% fujk/kkj lkfcr & iw.kZr% vioftZr fd, tkus ds fy,- vU;= gksus dk vfHkokd~ fuf'prrk ls lkfcr fd;k tkuk vo';dA ¼1984½ 1 ,llhlh 446 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½
¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 299 rFkk 300 & vk'k; rFkk Kku & vkijkfèkd ekuo o/k oxZ gS rFkk gR;k çtkfr gS & lHkh gR;k,a vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k gksrh gSa] ijarq rRçfrdwy ugha gksrk & gR;k ds fo'ks"k vfHky{k.kksa ds fcuk vkijkfèkd ekuo o/k] gR;k dh dksfV esa u vkus okyk vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k gksrk gS & /kkjk 299 ds çFke rFkk f}rh; [kaMksa esa Kku ds vfrfjä] vk'k; dk funsZ'k gS & r`rh; [kaM esa ek= Kku dk funsZ'k gS] vk'k; dk ugha & vfHkO;fä;ksa ^^vk'k;** rFkk ^^Kku** esa lqfuf'pr ekufld euksHkko dh fo|ekurk dh dYiuk gksrh gS] tks fHkUu&fHkUu Js.kh dk gksrk gS & vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k esa ekufld rRo vk'k; vkSj Kku dk gksrk gS & tc rd /kkjk 299 ds la?kVdksa esa mfYyf[kr ekufld n'kkvksa esa ls ,d fo|eku ugha gks] rc rd ;g rF; i;kZIr ugha fd fdlh ekuo dh e`R;q dkfjr dh xbZ gS & vijk/k dh ç—fr e`rd ds 'kjhj ij dkfjr {kfr dh vofLFkfr ij gh fuHkZj ugha gksrh] vk'k; dk vuqeku çdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & vk'k; rF; dk ç'u gS] ftldk vuqeku i{kdkj ds ÑR; ls yxk;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼2006½ 12 ,llhlh 613 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½
¼9½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & vihykFkhZ us e`rd ds ekfeZd Hkkx vFkkZr~ xnZu ij dqYgkM+h ls {kfr dkfjr dh] tks rh{.k /kkj okyh oLrq gS & vfHk;kstui{k ;qfä;qä lansg ds ijs vijk/k lkfcr dj ldk & pk{kq"k lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls iw.kZr% laiq"V & vfrLi"V gS fd vihykFkhZ dk vk'k; gR;k djus dk Fkk & vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k us vfHk;kstu lk{; dk iw.kZr% leFkZu fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ vfHk;qä dks nks"kfl) Bgjk dj naMkfn"V djus esa dksbZ xyrh ugha dhA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10½
JUDEMENT
Hirdesh, J -- 1. Today, this case is listed for hearing on IA No.18790 of 2024, fifth repeat application under section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 moved on behalf of appellant- Puran Yadav for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on the ground of period of custody as he has already suffered more than 10 years of incarceration, but with the consent of parties, this Court deems it proper to hear this appeal finally.
2. The instant Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 is preferred by appellant- Puran Yadav from Jail challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.8.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (MP) in Sessions Trial No.177 of 2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable u/S 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the night of 30.4.2014, Suresh (since deceased) was sleeping in the hut (gainth) with his uncle Gole (PW-2) and brother Mohar Singh (PW-1) in Village Kakrai. Around 02:00 in the night, accused Puran (appellant) opened the door (tata) and came there with an axe in his hand. Mohar Singh and others saw him coming there. Accused assaulted Suresh on his neck by means of axe and fled from there, due to which Suresh died on spot. Mohar Singh (brother of deceased) lodged a Dehati Nalisi at PS Bairad, District Shivpuri around 05:00 in the morning. On such allegations, PS Bairad registered Crime No.141 of 2014 against appellant for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Naksha Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P3. Dead body of deceased- Suresh was sent for Postmortem which was conducted by Dr.A.K. Maurya (PW-9) who proved Postmortem Report Ex.P9. Blood-stained and plain soil as well as other articles were seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P5. Pursuant to memorandum of appellant, an axe and other articles were also seized vide Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and the same were sent to FSL. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court of Criminal jurisdiction and in turn, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial, in which the appellant accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence, by stating that he has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and brought on record the relevant documents. Defence has examined none and not exhibited any document in order to prove its case.
5. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.
6. Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court is bad in law and contrary to the facts and evidence of the case. The evidence led by prosecution witnesses suffer from serious infirmities. The learned trial Court has committed an error in relying upon evidence of Mohar Singh (PW-1), Gole (PW-2), Matadin (PW3) and Seema (PW-7). All these witnesses are relatives and interested witnesses, therefore, their evidence is unreliable. Learned Counsel further contends that some unknown person has committed murder of deceased and appellant has falsely been implicated due to election rivalry. On the date of alleged incident, appellant was not present on spot, but in his in-laws' house. Although Gole (PW-2) and brother Mohar Singh (PW-1) brother and uncle of deceased were sleeping near deceased at the time of incident, but no one resisted the accused nor did anyone try to save the deceased. Alleged incident had taken place in the dark and it was not possible to see the accused. Le
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Rinkesh Goyal For the Respondent : Ajeet Singh Bhadoriya, Rajeev Upadhyay
The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of analyzing the relevant provisions of the IPC and applying them to the facts of the case in order to determine the nature of the offense ....
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
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
