Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 325
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.K. Shrivastava and B.D. Rathi, JJ.
Badam Singh and others v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.288 of 2000 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and sentence of Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, passed in
Sessions Trial No.222 of 1998; Decided on 25.6.2013.
R.K. Sharma for appellants;
B.K. Sharma for respondent.
Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302/34, 450, 307/34[ 326/34, 324/34 and 304/34 -- offence of murder with other offences -- non-production of Dehati Nalishi made the whole case of prosecution suspicious -- moreover, statements of prosecution witnesses full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations -- no independent witnesses produced -- benefit of doubt extended to the accused -- acquitted from all the charges.
Held : It is settled principle of law that whenever witnesses gave statements in the shape and design of contradiction, omission and in an exaggerated manner then certainly such statements should be treated as big hurdle to bring the charges, labelled against the accused persons, at home. Similarly, if any Dehati Nalishi has been recorded on the spot but not produced before the Court then it can be presumed that defence story was mentioned in suppressed Dehati Nalishi.
In such situation, it seems that one more FIR had been lodged at village, especially this possibility is being arisen before the Court in view of contradictory and exaggerated statements given by the witnesses. That FIR (Dehati Nalishi) was not produced before the trial Court. The whole case of prosecution has been made suspicious by non-production of Dehati Nalishi before the trial Court.
Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence of appellants is hereby set-aside. All the appellants are acquitted from all the charges. AIR 2003 SC 1589 and AIR 1981 SC 1230 followed.
naM lafgrk] 1860 & 302@34] 450] 307@34] 326@34] 324@34 rFkk 304@34 & vU; vijk/kksa ds lkFk gR;k dk vijk/k & nsgkrh ukfy’kh ds izLrqr us fd, tkus ls vfHk;kstu dk laiw.kZ ekeyk lafnX/k & blds vfrfjDr] vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku fojks/kkHkklksa] yksiksa rFkk vR;qfDr;ksa ls ifjiw.kZ & dksbZ Lora= lk{kh izLrqr ugha & vfHk;qDrksa dks lansg dk ykHk fn;k x;k & lHkh vkjksiksa ls nks”keqDrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g fof/k dk fu;r fl)kar gS fd tc dHkh lk{kh fojks/kkHkkl] yksi ds :i esa rFkk <k¡ps esa rFkk vR;qDr <ax ls dFku djrs gS] rc fuf’pr :i ls ,sls dFkuksa dks vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) yxk, x, vkjksiksa dks fl) djus esa cM+k vojks/k ekuk tkuk pkfg,A blh izdkj] ;fn ?kVukLFky ij nsgkrh ukfy’kh vfHk;qDr gqbZ ijarq U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha dh xbZ rc ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gS fd izfrj{kk dh dgkuh NqikbZ xbZ nsgkrh ukfy’kh esa mfYyf[kr FkhA
bl fLFkfr esa] ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd xzke esa ,d vkSj izFke bfryk fjiksVZ nkf[ky dh xbZ Fkh] fof’k”V :i ls U;k;ky; ds le{k ;g laHkkouk lkf{k;ksa )kjk fd, x, fojks/kkHkklh rFkk vR;qDr dFkuksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, izdV dh tk jgh gSA og izFke bfryk fjiksVZ ¼nsgkrh ukfy’kh½ fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr ugha dh xbZA vfHk;kstu dk iwjk ekeyk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k nsgkrh ukfy’kh ds izLrqr us fd, tkus ls lafnX/k cuk fn;k x;k gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i] ;g vihy lQy gksrh gS rFkk ,rn~)kjk eatwj dh tkrh gSA vihykfFkZ;ksa dh nks”kflf) rFkk naMkns’k dk fu.kZ; ,rn~)kjk vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA lHkh vihykFkhZ lkjs vkjksiksa ls nks”keqDr fd, tkrs gSA , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1589 rFkk , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 1230 vuqlfjrA
Rathi, J. -- 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 374 CrP.C on 11.04.2000 being aggrieved from the judgment and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh (Shri Ajeet Kapoor) in S.T. No.222/1998 on 23.03.2000, whereby every appellant-accused has been convicted under sections 302/34, 450, 307/34, 326/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 302/34 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 450 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 304/34 IPC, four years RI along with fine of Rs.1000/- under section 326/34 and two years RI under section 324/34 IPC separately for each accused. In default of fine six months additional RI has also been imposed. It was also ordered that all the sentences will run concurrently. The accused Urmila Bai and Rekha Bai both were acquitted from all the charges.
2. According to the prosecution case, 15 days prior to the date of incident i.e. on 13.5.1998 accused Badam Singh went to the house of complainant Matadeen to purchase earthen pot. Due to the non-availability of abovementioned earthen pot, complainant refused to supply him. Badam Singh returned to his house. After sometime, he again went to the house of complainant along with his son Ranveer Singh, Hukum Singh and Balveer Singh and caught Maniram (father of complainant Matadeen) and forcibly brought him at their house. He was beaten and thereafter he was released on the prayer of his son Matadeen. This incident was not reported at Police Station by the complainant. On this estranged relationship, in the midnight of 12-13 May, 1998 at about 12 o’clock accused Badam Singh armed with sword, Ranveer Singh armed with sword, Balveer Singh armed with knife, Hukum Singh armed with country made pistol and axe (farsa) came at the house of complainant. All the accused were identified by the complainant Matadeen in the moonlight. Deceased Tunda (grandfather of complainant Matadeen) was sitting outside his house on the cot. He was murdered by accused Badam Singh and Ranveer by inflicting various injuries on the vital part of the body by sword. Complainant Matadeen and his grandmother were also assaulted through sword by Badam Singh and Ranveer Singh. Lohribai (mother of the complainant Matadeen) was also assaulted with sword and knife by Badam Singh, Ranveer Singh and Balveer. By entering in the house of complainant, accused Hukma has threatened to life by making fire in air for not to lodge FIR of this incident. Accused Urmila, Rekha Bai and Tahar Singh also came there and caused injuries by pelting stones. In this incident, Tunda died on the spot due to the injuries caused by sharp edged weapons. Matadeen, Sukhobai and Lohribai also got injured.
3. Due to night, FIR was lodged in the morning at about 9:30 a.m. on 13.05.1998 at Police Station Kailaras, which is 5 kms away from the village Pachekha, place of incident. Crime No.86/1998 was registered at Police Station Kailaras against Badam Singh, Balveer Singh, Ranveer Singh, Hukum Singh, Tahar Singh, Urmila and Rekha for the offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 459 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Sabalgarh. Criminal Case No.364/1998 was registered. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as S.T. No.222/1998.
4. The learned trial judge, on the basis of allegations made against the appellants, framed charges, against Badam Singh, Balveer Singh, Ranveer Singh, Urmila and Rekha alias Ushabai, under sections 148, 450, 302 or 302/149, 307/149 IPC. Appellants/accused absurd the guilt and pleaded innocence.
5. In order to prove the charges against the appellants/accused, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and placed Ex.P-1 to P-18, the documents on record. The defence of the appellants is that incident was occurred due to the collapse of Pator (small house)
