Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and G.S. Ahluwalia, JJ.
Godila@Dharmsingh v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No.372 and 400 of 2007 (Gwalior);
against judgment and sentence dated 22.3.2007 passed by special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No.122/2005; Decided on 25.9.2017.
Held : Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is clear that nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination, which may make his evidence unreliable. Further, this witness has lodged the FIR, Ex. P-8 within a period of 30 minutes. The police station is situated at a distance of 1 ½ kms from the place of incident. This witness went to police station by running. Every minute detail with regard to the incident is mentioned in the FIR. It was also mentioned that the appellant Mantola had assaulted the deceased by means of knife for several times and the appellant Godila had fired at the deceased. The case diary statement of this witness was also recorded on the same day. The spot map was prepared at 7:15 a.m. In the post-mortem report, as many as 15 incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased Mohan whereas one entry and exit wounds were also found. Thus, it is clear that the FIR Ex.P-8, lodged by Purshottam (PW5) within 30 minutes of the incident finds full corroboration with the post-mortem report.
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss.8 and 60 -- enmity cannot be sole ground to discard evidence of witness -- if ocular evidence is clinching and worth reliance then enmity in fact further corroborates ocular evidence -- provides notice to accused. (2002)7 SCC 691, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 363 and (2015)16 SCC 168 followed. [Paras 22 to 24
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.60 -- Sole eye witness real brother of deceased -- evidence cannot be rejected merely on this ground -- nothing on record to suggest why he would spare real culprit by falsely implicating appellant. (2013)14 SCC 581, (2016)10 SCC 537 and (2007)14 SCC 150 followed. [Paras 25 to 28
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- contention that name of assailants, are not mentioned in inquest report therefore eye witness had not seen incident -- cannot be accepted -- inquest report was prepared in the mortuary -- purpose is to find out whether death is homicidal, accidental or natural -- nowhere provided in law that each and every detail of offence is to be mentioned in inquest report. (2013)15 SCC 284 followed. [Paras 29 and 30
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- sole eye witness -- real brother of deceased -- explained his conduct of not intervening in the assault -- not strait-jacket formula can be laid down to ascertain what should be the reaction of the relative of deceased -- one person having pistol fired at deceased, another having knife furiously assaulted deceased -- explanation for not attempting to save brother cannot be said to be unrealistic. (2015)12 SCC 373 followed. [Paras 31 and 32
(6) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.8 -- Penal Code,1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- motive -- prosecution based on direct evidence -- absence of motive is irrelevant -- absence of motive cannot be a ground to discard direct evidence. (2003)12 SCC 616, (2006)10 SCC 499, and (2010)12 SCC 326 followed. [Paras 33 to 35
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- Arms Act, 1959 -- S.25(1-B) -- trial Court acquitted appellant under S.25 (1-B) even if weapon of offence is not recovered or wrong weapon was seized, it would not be fatal to prosecution case. (2016)3 SCC 317, (2013)12 SCC 796, (2003)10 SCC 45 and (2014)7 SCC 443 followed. [Paras 36 and 37
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- prosecution failed to prove that knife seized from possession of appellant was used in crime -- no blood found on knife seized from appellant -- appellant arrested 5 days after incident -- had sufficient time to wipe blood -- ample unimpeachable ocular evidence corroborated by medical evidence -- non-recovery of weapon does not affect prosecution case. [Paras 38 and 39
(9) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- common intention -- incident took place at 6 in the morning -- appellants went with deadly arms and were waiting for deceased to come -- assaulted mercilessly without any provocation -- clearly shows common intention. (2013)3 SCC 675 and (2016)15 SCC 471 followed. [Paras 40 to 42
(10) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- contention that deceased died instantaneously on suffering gun shot injury and appellant caused incised wound after death, therefore, cannot be convicted under S.302 -- cannot be accepted -- ocular evidence that appellant assaulted deceased repeatedly immediately after gun shot injury -- thereafter deceased fell
-- doctor has not stated that incised wounds were post-mortem in nature
-- cannot be said that deceased must have died instantaneously after sustaining gun shot injury. [ Para 43
(11) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 and 304 -- basic difference between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder is "intention" -- where offence is committed with intention and knowledge, and injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, such act would fall within category of murder -- manner of offence and the member of injuries as well as sites of injuries clearly establish "intention" and "knowledge". (2016)3 SCC 317 followed. [Paras 45 and 46
(12) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34 -- appellants caused multiple injuries out of which one was gun shot injury and remaining 15 injuries were incised wounds -- killed deceased in furtherance of common intention -- are guilty. [Para 49
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & ,dek= izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh & izfrijh{k.k esa ,slk dqN ugha fudyk ftlls mldk lk{; vfo'oluh; gks & izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ 30 feuV ds Hkhrj nkf[ky dh & ?kVuk dk izR;sd lw{e C;kSjk izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr & bldk mYys[k fd vihykFkhZ eaVksyk us e`rd ij pkdw ls vusd ckj geyk fd;k vkSj vihykFkhZ xksfMyk us xksyh pykbZ & dsl Mk;jh dFku mlh fnu vfHkfyf[kr & izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ iw.kZr% laiq"V & nks"kflf} vfHkiq"VA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] bl lk{kh ds lk{; ls Li"V gS fd mlds izfrijh{k.k esa ,slk dqN ugha fudyk ftlls mldk lk{; vfo'oluh; gksA blds vfrfjDr] bl lk{kh us izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&8] 30 feuV dh vof/k ds Hkhrj nkf[ky dj nh FkhA iqfyl Fkkuk ?kVuk LFky ls 1 1@2 fdŒehŒ dh nwjh ij fLFkr gSA ;g lk{kh Hkkx ij iqfyl Fkkus x;k FkkA ?kVuk ls lacaf/kr izR;sd lw{e C;kSjs dk izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ esa mYys[k gSA ;g Hkh mfYyf[kr gS fd vihykFkhZ eaVksyk us e`rd ij pkdw ls vusd ckj geyk fd;k Fkk vkSj vihykFkhZ xksfMyk us e`rd ij xksyh pykbZ FkhA bl lk{kh dk dsl Mk;jh dFku Hkh mlh fnu vfHkfyf[kr fd;k FkkA LFky ekufp= 7%15 iwokZUg cts rS;kj fd;k x;k FkkA 'ko ijh{k.k fjiksVZ esa e`rd eksgu ds 'kjhj ij 15 ftrus fNUu ?kko ik, x, tcfd ,d izfof"V ,oa fuxZe ?kko Hkh ik, x, vr% Li"V gS fd iq:"kksRre ¼vŒlkŒ 5½ }kjk ?kVuk ds 30 feuV ds Hkhrj nkf[ky izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&8 'ko ijh{k.k fjiksVZ ls iw.kZr% laiq"V gSA ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 8 rFkk 60 & 'k=qrk] lk{kh dk lk{; R;Dr djus dk ,dek= vk/kkj ugha gks ldrk & ;fn pk{kqi lk{; fu'pk;d vkSj fo'okl ;ksX; gS rks 'k=qrk ls oLrqr% pk{kqi lk{; dh vkSj ls iqf"V gh gksrh gS & vfHk;qDr dks gsrq feyrk gSA ¼2002½ 7 ,l lh lh 691] 1995 lIyhŒ ¼1½ ,l lh lh 363 rFkk ¼2015½ 16 ,l lh lh 168 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ls 24½ ¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 60 & ,dek= izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh e`rd dk lxk HkkbZ & lk{; dsoy bl vk/kkj ij vxzkg~; ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vfHkys[k ij ,slk dqN ugha ftlls irk pys fd og vihykFkhZx.k dks feF;k vkfyIr dj okLrfod nks"kh dks D;ksa NksM+sxkA ¼2013½ 14 ,l lh lh 581] ¼2016½ 10 ,l lh lh 537 rFkk ¼2007½ 14 ,l lh lh 150 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25 ls 28½ ¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & ladFku fd geykojksa ds uke e`R;q&leh{kk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr ugha blfy, izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh us ?kVuk ugha ns[kh & Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & e`R;q&leh{kk fjiksVZ 'ko x`g esa rS;kj dh xbZ Fkh & iz;kstu ;g Kkr djuk gS fd e`R;q ekuoo/k Lo:i dh gS] nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k gSa vFkok izkd`frd gS & fof/k esa dgha micaf/kr ugha gS fd e`R;q&leh{kk esa vijk/k dk izR;sd C;kSjk mfYyf[kr gksuk pkfg,A ¼2013½ 15 ,l lh lh 284 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 29 ,oa 30½ ¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & ,dek= izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh & e`rd dk lxk HkkbZ & geys esa e/;{ksi ugha djus dk viuk vkpj.k Li"Vhd`r fd;k & ;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds fy, e`rd ds ukrsnkj dh izfrfdz;k D;k gksuk pkfg,] dksbZ cM+k lw= vf/kdfFkr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fiLrkSy okys ,d O;fDr us e`rd ij xksyh pykbZ] pkdw okys vU; O;fDr us e`rd ij Hkh"k.k geyk fd;k & HkkbZ dks cpkus dk iz;kl ugha djus dk Li"Vhdj.k vokLrfod ugha dgk tk ldrkA ¼2015½ 12 ,l lh lh 373 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 31 ,oa 32½ ¼6½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 8 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & gsrq & vfHk;kstu izR;{k lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & gsrq dk vHkko vlaxr gS & gsrq dk vHkko izR;{k lk{; O;Dr djus dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrkA ¼2003½ 12 ,l lh lh 616] ¼2006½ 10 ,l lh lh 499 rFkk ¼2010½ 12 ,l lh lh 324 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 33 ls 35½ ¼7½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e] 1959 & /kkjk 25¼1&[k½ & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dks /kkjk 25¼1&[k½ ds v/khu nks"keqDr fd;k & vijk/k esa iz;qDr gfFk;kj cjken ugha gks vFkok xyr gfFk;kj tCr gks rc Hkh og vfHk;kstu i{kdFku ds fy, ?kkrd ugha gksxkA ¼2016½ 3 ,l lh lh 317] ¼2013½ 12 ,l lh lh 796] ¼2003½ 10 ,l lh lh 45 rFkk ¼2014½ 7 ,l lh lh 443 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 36 ,oa 37½ ¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & vfHk;kstu ;g lkfcr djus esa foQy fd vihykFkhZ ds dCts ls tCr pkdw vijk/k esa iz;qDr & vihykFkhZ ls tCr pkdw ij jDr ugha ik;k x;k & vihykFkhZ ?kVuk ds 5 fnu i'pkr~ fxjrkj & jDr iksaNus ds fy, i;kZIr le; Fkk & izpj vdkV~; pk{kq"k lk{;] fpfdRlh; lk{; ls laiq"V & gfFk;kj dh xSj&cjkenxh ls vfHk;kstu i{kdFku izHkkfor ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 38 ,oa 39½ ¼9½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & lkekU; vk'k; & ?kVuk izkr% 6 cts ?kVh & vihykFkhZ ?kkrd vk;q/kksa ds lkFk x, vkSj e`rd ds vkus dh izrh{kk dj jgs Fks & fcuk fdlh izdksiu ds funZ;rk ls geyk fd;k & lkekU; vk'k; Li"Vr% nf'kZrA ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 675 rFkk ¼2016½ 15 ,l lh lh 471 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 40 ls 42½ ¼10½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 & ladFku fd xksyh dh {kfr gksrs gh e`rd dh rRdky e`R;q gks xbZ vkSj vihykFkhZ us e`R;qijkar fHkUu ?kko dkfjr fd, blfy, /kkjk 302 ds v/khu nks"kfl} ugha fd;k tk ldrk & Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & pk{kq"k lk{; fd xksyh dh {kfr ds rqjar i'pkr~ vihykFkhZ us e`rd ij ckj&ckj geyk fd;k & rRi'pkr~ e`rd fxjk & fpfdRld dk ;g dFku ugha fd fNUu ?kko e`R;qijkar izd`fr ds Fks & ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd xksyh dh {kfr igq¡pus ds i'pkr~ e`rd dh rRdky e`R;q gks xbZ gksxhA ¼iSjk 43½ ¼11½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 rFkk 304 & gR;k dh dksfV esa u vkus okys vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k vkSj gR;k esa ewy varj ^^vk'k;** dk gS & tgk¡ vijk/k vk'k; vkSj Kku ds lkFk fd;k tkrk gS rFkk {kfr izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr gS] ,slk d`R; gR;k dh dksfV esa vk,xk & vijk/k dh jhfr vkSj {kfr;ksa dh la[;k ds lkFk&lkFk {kfr;ksa ds voLFkku ls ^^vk'k;** vkSj ^^Kku** Li"Vr% LFkkfir gksrs gSaA ¼2016½ 3 ,l lh lh 317 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 45 ,oa 46½ ¼12½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302@34 rFkk 304 & vihykFkhZx.k us vusd {kfr;k¡ dkfjr dh ftuesa ls ,d xksyh dh {kfr Fkh vkSj 'ks"k 15 {kfr;k¡ fNUu ?kko Fks & lkekU; vk'k; vxzlj djus esa e`rd dh gR;k dh & nks"kh gSaA ¼iSjk 49½
1. This Judgment shall also dispose off Criminal Appeal No.400/2007 filed by Mantoli @ Mantola alias Raghvendra Singh.
2. These Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 22.3.2007 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No.122/2005, by which the appellants have been convicted under section 302/34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo the life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default imprisonment.
3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeals in short are that a FIR was lodged by Purshottam Arya, on 18.8.2005 at about 6:30 a.m., alleging that at about 6 a.m., he along with his brother Raju and Mohan were going to take milk and Mohan was walking ahead of them. The moment, Mohan reached near the sweet shop, the appellants who were already there, stopped Mohan and appellant Godila @ Dharmsingh took out a country made pistol and appellant Mantola took out a knife. Appellant Godila, with an intention to kill Mohan fired at him three to four times, whereas appellant Mantola assaulted the deceased Mohan several times as a result of which, Mohan fell down. The complainant and Raju found that Mohan had already expired. Thereafter, the appellants Godila and Mantola ran away. It was also alleged that on earlier occasion, both the appellants had quarrelled with Mohan on the question of vacating the house and demand of money, therefore, they have killed Mohan. The incident was seen by Gopal, Umesh, Premnarayan and others. The police after registering the FIR, started investigation. The spot map was prepared. Plain and bloodstained earth was seized. Inquest report was prepared. The dead body of Mohan was sent for postmortem. The appellants were arrested. One knife was seized from the possession of Mantola, whereas one country made pistol was seized from the possession of Godila. Knife was sent to FSL, Sagar, which opined that the cut marks on the shirt of the deceased and the size and shape of the knife suggests that the incised wounds were caused by knife as the nature of cut marks on the shirt are similar to that of knife. The pistol was also found to be in working condition. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the appellants for offence under section 302/34 of IPC, under sections 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and under section 25/27 of Arms Act.
4. The trial Court by order dated 15.12.2005, framed charges under section 302/34 of IPC and under sections 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Later on, by order dated 14.12.2006, charge under section 25 of Arms Act was also framed.
5. The appellants abjured their guilt and sought trial.
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Sultan Singh (PW1), Premnarayan (PW2), Dr. Yogendra Singh (PW3), Lal Singh (PW4), Purshottam (PW5), Ram Pratap Singh (PW6), Sitaram (PW7), Gopal Arya (PW8), Prakash Singh (PW9), Ravikant Jain (PW10). The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
7. The trial Court by Judgment dated 22.3.2007 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.122/2005 convicted the appellants for offence under section 302/34 of IPC and awarded life sentence and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default imprisonment, and acquitted the appellants for charge under section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and also for charge under section 25(1-B) of Arms Act.
8. It was held by the trial Court that the evidence of Premanaryan (PW2) is not reliable and the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of country-made pistol from the possession of appellant Godila. It was further held that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the knife seized from the possession of appellant Mantola was used for committing crime. However, relying on the sole testimony of Purshottam (PW5), the appellants were conv
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
