Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dipak Misra, A. K. Shrivastava, JJ.
RAJOO - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF M. P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1990
Decided On : 10-10-2002
FIR - Murder - Section 302, Indian Penal Code - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for fatally assaulting the deceased with a spear. The prosecution's case was supported by eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of murder based on the eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and the lack of merit in the appellant's contentions.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the unsigned FIR, credibility of eyewitness testimony, and the significance of forensic evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unsigned FIR was not fatal to the prosecution's case, eyewitness testimony was credible, and the lack of forensic examination of the weapon did not undermine the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and upheld the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.
JUDGMENT :
A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Convicted accused/appellant, Rajoo, has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 22-1-1990 passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.214/88 convicting him of the offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code and imposing sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to suffer two months' further rigorous imprisonment.
2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that 7-8 days prior the date of incident, there had been a squabble between ceased Banu Barman and one Chhinga Mehtar. On the date of incident, 28-11-1987, at 6 p.m., the accused and the deceased, reached near the shop of PW-2, Pandit Banshilal, near which a well is situated. The brother of deceased, Pappu (PW-1) was toring the water.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that near the place of occurrence, altercation continued between the deceased and the accused. The accused, as the allegation proceeds, called the deceased a 'scavenger' as he was assaulted by a person belonging to that strata. The deceased reacted to the same and in turn stated that the accused and his father were 'scavengers'. In reply the accused said that, as deceased was denoting his father to be a scavenger, he would be killed. The accused thereafter went inside his house and came along with a Spear. His wife tried to stop him but she was thrust by the accused. Pandit Banshilal (PW-2) and Pappu (PW-1) also requested him to stop, but, he did not pay any heed and gave a blow of spear on the neck of deceased, as a result of which, he fell down and died.
4. The brother of deceased, namely, Pappu (PW-1) when came to the spot, found the deceased was besmeared with the blood and was dead. The accused when observed that deceased has died, fled from the spot.
5. The incident was reported by Pappu (PW-1), the brother of deceased, at the police station soon after the incident within half an hour, at 6.30 p.m. The First Information Report is Ex.P-1 which set the criminal law in motion.
6. Hardas Bairagi (PW-12) Town Inspector of Police Station Garha, reached the spot and found the dead body lying there. A 'Panchanama' (Ex.P-10) was prepared, and the dead-body was sent to Medical College for post-mortem. Shri Bairagi seized the blood-stained earth, ordinary earth, the broken pieces of bangles of the wife of accused from his house and also seized the spear. The blood stained clothes of deceased were seized, the accused was arrested on 29-11-1987 and after the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under section 302, Indian Penal Code in the competent Court, which committed the matter to the Court of Session.
7. The learned Trial Judge, framed charge under section 302, Indian Penal Code, which was denied by the accused/appellant. His defence is one of false implication.
8. The prosecution, so as to bring home the charge, examined as many as 13 witnesses. Pappu (PW-1) is the author of First Information Report (Ex.P-1) and also an eye-witness. The other eye-witnesses are Banshilal (PW-2) and Lal Singh (PW-7) but they had turned hostile, Phoolwati (PW-3) is the wife of deceased who arrived at the spot, upon the information being supplied to her that her husband had been killed, Madhav Prasad (PW-4) is the formal witness of seizure memo of the dead-body, Pratap Singh (PW-5) is Constable who carried the dead-body of deceased to Medical College for post-mortem, Parwati Bai (PW-6), Virendra Kumar Patwari (PW-8), Beni Prasad (PW-9) and Bhagwandeen (PW-10) are the formal witnesses. Arjun (PW-11) is the witness of seizure of blood stained spear. Hardas Bairagi (PW-12) is the investigating officer and Dr. B.M. Shrivastava (PW-13) is the Autopsy Surgeon.
9. The autopsy surgeon, Dr. B.M. Shrivastava, conducted the post-mortem on 29-11-1987 and noticed deep incised wound 4" x 3" x 3" (deep over left side neck) extending from 3" below left cutting the cervical vertebra, soft tissues, veins, tra
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
