IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Basant v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 891 of 2011 (Indore): against the judgment dated 28.6.2011 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 1042/2009; Decided on 25.4.2022
(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 6 -- hearsay evidence -- statements of witnesses although hearsay, but were made contemporaneously with acts or immediately thereafter -- same are very well admissible in evidence as per provisions of S. 6 of Act. (1999) 9 SCC 507 followed. [Para 14
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 32 -- dying declaration -- statement made to witness by deceased at time of incident and also when he was on way to hospital -- will be treated as his oral dying declaration. [Para 15
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- Arms Act, 1959 -- S. 25 -- prior enmity or animosity between appellant and deceased -- appellant inflicted two knife blows on vital part, i.e., chest of deceased -- shows that same were inflicted with intent to commit murder -- no error in holding appellant guilty u/s. 302 of IPC as well as u/s. 25 of Arms Act. (2018) 2 SCC 496 and Cr. A. No. 201 of 2009 decided on 10.8.2021 (MP) distinguished. [Paras 18 & 19
¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 6 && vuqJqr lk{; && lk{khx.k ds dFku ;|fi vuqJqr gSa] rFkkfi og ÑR;ksa ds ledkyhu vFkok muds rqjar i'pkr~ fd, x, Fks && og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj lk{; esa HkyhHkk¡fr xzká gSaA ¼1999½9 ,l lh lh 507 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 32 && e`R;qdkfyd dFku && e`rd }kjk ?kVuk ds le; rFkk fpfdRlky; tkrs le; lk{kh dks fd;k x;k dFku && mldk ekSf[kd e`R;qdkfyd dFku ekuk tk,xkA ¼iSjk 15
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 && vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 && /kkjk 25 && vihykFkhZ rFkk e`rd ds e/;iwoZ ls 'k=qrk vFkok oSeuL; && vihykFkhZ us e`rd ds ekfeZd vax vFkkZr~ o{k ij pkdw ls nks okj fd, && nf'kZr fd og gR;k djus ds vk'k; ls fd, x, Fks && vihykFkhZ dks naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds lkFk&lkFk vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ds v/khu nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ xyrh ughaA ¼2018½2 ,l lh lh 496 rFkk nkafMd vihy Ø- 201 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 10-8-2021 ¼e-iz-½ izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 18 ,oa 19
JUDGMENT
Singh, J. -- 1 The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) [in short Cr.P.C.] against the judgment dated 28.6.2011 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No.1042/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and under Sec 25(1)(1-B) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story in brief is as follows :
(i) About fifteen years ago complainant Saroj Kashyap's husband deceased Surendra Kashyap purchased a hath thela placed near Mahalaxmi Temple, opposite to Rajwada Indore from the appellant Basant Kala for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and ran a shop of bangles therein. Appellant occasionally used to take an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as rent from the deceased and when the deceased denied to give the rent amount, appellant got angry and was having animosity with him. On 29.6.2009, at about 8:30 p.m. when deceased was going towards Rajwada Gate, appellant came there from opposite direction and with an intent to commit his murder inflicted two knife blows on his chest, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and cried for help saying “ mujhe Basant Kale ne chaku mara hai”. Complainant – Saroj, her nephew Mahendra and neighbour Shopkeeper Ravi ran towards deceased to see the incident, soon whereafter, appellant ran away from the spot.
(ii) Complainant - Saroj , Mahendra and Ravi immediately took the deceased to Arpan Hospital and thereafter to M.Y. Hospital Indore in an Auto rickshaw where at about 9:07 p.m. he was declared dead. On the same day, at about 9:17 p.m. on the basis of telephonic information received from M.Y. Hospital, HC Shivram Singh registered the merg intimation report (Ex. P-4) at Police Station, Sarafa, Indore. Inspector G.S. Chadhar rushed to M.Y. Hospital and at about 9:10 p.m. recorded dehati nalishi (Ex. P-3) on the basis of statement of complainant - Saroj. On the same day, he inspected the place of incident and prepared spot map (Ex. P-8), seized plain and blood soaked soil from the place of incident, as per seizure memo (Ex.P-9) and recorded statements of the complainant as well as witnesses Mahendra, Ishant, Ravi and Karan Singh.
(iii) On the next day i.e. on 30.6.2009, ASI Gajanand went to M.Y. Hospital Indore, called the witnesses issuing safina form (Ex.P-5) and prepared naksha panchayatnama(Ex. P-6) of deceased's body and vide letter (Ex. P-23) sent the same for post-mortem examination. On the same day, at about 12:16 p.m. Dr. N.M. Unda conducted post-mortem examination of the body of the deceased and found following injuries on his body :
(a) Stab injury present on the left side of chest, 14.0 cm above and 1.0 medial to left nipple just below the clavicle mid point, 2.2. x 1.50 cm deep to the thoracic cavity. Obliquely placed cut mark present in the underneath vascular. Structure thoracic cavity and lung tissue upper lobe left side cut marks in lung tissue 2x1 cm deep, total depth. 12.0 cm, direction of wound is meteropostuing shift downwards. One end of the wound is narrow clean cut and other end is slightly broad and lacerated.
(b) Stab wound present on the left side of chest wall just over the nipple and are of a slightly obliquely placed. Size of the wound is 2.5 x 1.50 cm, deep to the lung border and heart. Cut mark size on lung tissue and heart are 1.0 cm through and through the heart wall and its width is 0.5 cm in the bone. Total depth is measured in the heart cavity to extend 12.0 cm. One end of the wound is slightly broad and lacerated, left margin clean cut and narrow.
Dr. N.M. Unda prepared post-mortem report (Ex. P-23 and P-24) and opined that deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injuries to the chest. Both the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and penetrating object and are sufficient to caus
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : A. S. Rathore For the Respondent : Mukesh Kumawat
Eyewitness accounts cannot be disregarded solely due to witness relations; the intent behind injuries determines the charge under IPC, leading to a reduction from murder to culpable homicide.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Whether conviction justified - Ante mortem injuries noted by Dr. in his post mortem report leads to only hypothesis that appellant knew that such act of his which caus....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.