IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND PATHAK, HIRDESH, JJ.
Jagannath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2014
Decided On : 19-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges conviction in murder case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for false implication and unreliable witness testimony. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. state supports conviction; evidence deemed credible. (Para 12 , 14 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. conviction upheld based on compelling evidence. (Para 35) |
JUDGMENT :
Hirdesh, J.
1.The present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by appellant- Jagannath challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-12-2013 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.152 of 2013 by which, appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall further undergo Six Months' additional Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. As per the case of prosecution, on the date of incident i.e. 24-01-2013 around 11:00 am, Sarjan Singh (PW4), brother of Chander Singh (since deceased) submitted a report with Police Chowki Ukawad, PS Jamner to the effect that around 09:00 am in the morning, he received information on his mobile No.9827753304 from mobile No.8103456390 of Hakim Singh that Chander Singh has been murdered in Kola Ki Bedri and at the time of commission of murder of Chander Singh, his wife Daryav Bai has seen the incident. Accused Mangilal held down Chander Singh. Accused Samandar, Jagannath (present appellant) and Munshi alias Vikram assaulted Chander Singh by means of axe. Total five assailants including one unknown assailant were involved in commission of crime. Ratna Gurjar has also seen the incident. On hearing screams of Ratna Gurjar and DaryavBai (wife of deceased Chander Singh), the villagers came. Accused fled away from spot. On the basis of such information, a Crime No.06 of 2013 vide Ex.P1 was registered for offence punishable under Section 302 /34 of IPC at Police Outpost Ukawad by ASI Uttam Singh (PW-9). Merg No.01 of 2013 under Section 174 of CrPC regarding death of Chander Singh was recorded vide Ex.P14. Investigation was started.
3. ASI Uttam Singh (PW-9) reached the place of incident. On the basis of Safina form (Ex.P2) of the witnesses, Panchnama of the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P3. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P4. Bloodstained and plain soil in two plastic boxes were collected from the spot. A mobile was seized near the dead body of deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P6. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased was sent to Primary Health Centre Madhusudangarh for postmortem, where Dr .Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) conducted postmortem vide postmortem report Ex.P10. On the basis of Ex.P1, actual Crime No.21 of 2013 was registered at PS Jamner vide FIR Ex.P12.
4. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC in which, the witnesses stated that murder of deceased Chander Singh was committed only by accused- Jagannath (present appellant) by assaulting him with axe. The then Investigating Officer- Basant Naik (PW-10) arrested the appellant-accused vide arrest memo Ex.P7. In the presence of witnesses, on the basis of memorandum of appellant, axe hidden inside the house near Ghatti and a mobile phone were seized from the possession of appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P9. Thereafter, the seized axe was sent to Dr.Mukesh Sharma (PW-7) and sought a query as to whether injuries on the body of deceased were caused to said axe. According to query report Ex.P11 of Dr. Mukesh Sharma (PW7), axe could have caused injuries found on the body of deceased. Seized axe and blood-stained & plain soil as well as shirt of the deceased were sent to FSL, Gwalior for chemical examination from where the FSL report was received vide Ex.P16. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge sheet was filed by police before the Court of JMFC, Raghogarh from where case was committed to the Sessions Court, Guna.
5. Charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed. At th
Shingara Singh vs. State of Haryana & Another
Kanakarajan alias Kanakan vs. State of Kerala
Yogesh Singh vs. Mahaveer Singh
Shamim vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rizan vs. State of Chhattisgarh
C. Muniappan & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and Others vs. State of Punjab
Sawan Singh vs. State of Punjab
Mahesh vs. State of Maharashtra
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, affirming that witness credibility, including relatives, supports the prosecution when corroborated by medical evidence.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent and trustworthy evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating cir....
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
Eyewitness testimony holds credibility even when minor contradictions exist; motive for crime established through related witness accounts legitimizes conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
Eyewitness testimony from injured relatives is credible and can support a conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
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.