Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 1149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
SANJAY YADAV, ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI, JJ.
Kishan Banjara - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Cr. A. No. 606 of 2007
Decided On : 23-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A.K. Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent: Yogesh Parashar, Public Prosecutor
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborating evidence, especially in cases where eyewitness testimonies play a crucial role in establishing the charge of murder.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - IPC Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302 - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and forensic analysis, to establish the charge of murder against the appellant under IPC Section 302. The court also referred to legal principles regarding the credibility of eyewitnesses, especially when they are close relatives of the deceased, and emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence in reaching a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under IPC Section 302 for causing the murder of Adiram. The prosecution presented evidence including eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and forensic analysis to establish the charge of murder.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the appellant guilty of the murder based on credible eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and forensic analysis, leading to his conviction under IPC Section 302.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the admissibility of close relatives' evidence, and the importance of corroborating evidence in establishing the charge of murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, even when the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, and highlighted the significance of corroborating evidence in reaching a decision.
Final Decision: The appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the trial court.
SANJAY YADAV, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction under section 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment recorded by the trial Court against the appellant. Appellant is found guilty of the offence of causing murder of Adiram on 7.12.2005 at 9:00 AM.
2. Facts leading to conviction are that, on report being lodged by Rajesh (PW.5) as to the commission of an offence by the appellant causing repeated blows to Adi ram on 7.12.2005 at 9:00 AM and on trying to pacify being chased by the accused and the injuries has left Adiram in Pool of blood causing death, the FIR (Ex. P/12) was registered at Police Station Gohad. The investigation was set in motion. Spot map and inquest was prepared (Ex. P/2, P/3 and P/4). Blood stained and simple soil was collected (Ex. P/6), pieces of wood was collected (Ex. P/5). The dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW.3) who submitted his report on 7.12.2005 (Ex. P/7). That following injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
"(I) Incised wound two in number margins 3" x 1/2 x bone deep up to tip of nose from eye brow right side at the margin with second Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep at right side eye brow;
(II) Right ear lacerated and disfigured and was multiple swell lacerated blood is filled in canal, tragers is secede;
(III) Contusion below right ear up to neck;
(IV) Right cheek (whole) is contused;
(V) Lacerated wound right side occipital 2 1/2" x 3/4 x bone deep;
(VI) Lacerated wound right parietal region 4" x 1" x bone deep;
(VII) Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep frontal region right side.
(VIII) Upper lip is lacerated.
(IX) Chin and lower lip is lacerated.
(X) Contusion at right side abdomen subtotal region with abrasion size 8" x 2" present."
3. That as per doctor's opinion the cause of death was due injury to brain and during coma. The death as per doctor was homicidal in nature.
4. The appellant was arrested on 8.12.2005 (Ex. P/8) and at his instance the stick (danda) said to be used for commission of offence was recovered vide Ex. P/10. The said stick had an iron ring at the edge. The articles including the stick was sent for Chemical/Forensic analysis. The analysis report was furnished and exhibited as Ex. P/16 and Ex. P/17. The report was prepared by K.C. Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer (PW.10).
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed for trial, wherein the accused abjured his guilt and pleaded that he is falsely implicated.
6. Prosecution examined eleven witnesses, out of these Dwarika Prasad (PW.1), Gopiram (PW.2), Ramswaroop (PW.4), Rajesh (PW.5) and Bhagwan Das (PW.6) as eye-witnesses and Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW.3) who conducted the postmortem and K.C. Sharma (PW.10) who prepared the forensic report (Ex. P.16 and Ex. P17).
7. The trial Court discarding the defence that all the eye witnesses are the relatives of the deceased found their evidence credible corroborating with the medical evidence and forensic analysis and held that prosecution succeeded in establish the charge of murder of Adiram against the appellant. Thus, finding led to his conviction.
8. Evidently, the incident has occurred in the broad day light in agricultural filed. There is no iota of material evidence to espouse the doubt of Dwarika Prasad (PW.1), Gopiram (PW.2), Ramswaroop (PW.4), Rajesh (PW.5) and Bhagwan Das (PW.6) not present in the agricultural field. Learned amicus has failed to advert to any cogent material as would doubt their presence in the field. These witnesses having witnessed the incident which they deposed the same in their evidence. Rajesh (PW.5), who lodged the complaint, in his evidence categorically narrated the entire event as to how the deceased was assaulted by the accused with a stick (Danda) resulting in injuries to head. Similar evidence is given by other witnesses who explicitly deposed as to the brutal manner in which the injuries were caused.
9. In Arjun and another v. State
