Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7819
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA, JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, JJ
Gopal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P – Respondent
CRA 446/2013
Jail Appeal,
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing that the testimony of relatives as eyewitnesses is credible if corroborated by medical evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 and 323/34 - Conviction for murder and causing simple injuries - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines for murder and simple injuries - Evidence from eyewitnesses and medical reports established the nature of injuries and the homicidal death of the victim. (Paras 1, 4, 31)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of eyewitnesses - Testimony of relatives not to be dismissed solely due to relationship; must be scrutinized for reliability - Court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence from medical reports and eyewitness accounts. (Paras 20, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Babu Singh and causing injuries to Geetabai during a quarrel over a debt. The incident occurred on 04.08.2012, leading to the death of Babu Singh due to grievous injuries inflicted by the accused. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the evidence of eyewitnesses credible and consistent, supported by medical evidence indicating the nature of injuries and the cause of death. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. (Paras 31, 33)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses, the nature of injuries sustained, and whether the act constituted murder under IPC. (Paras 15, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the relationship of witnesses with the deceased did not undermine their credibility. (Paras 31, 32)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
Per: Rajendra Kumar Vani, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26/04/2013 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Case No.278/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity “ IPC ”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one month's R.I with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.
2. Draped in brevity, the case of the prosecution is that on
04.08.2012, at about 09 pm, when the complainant Geetabai (PW-5) and her daughter – Bhuribai (PW-6) were cooking food at their home in Adiwasi Moholla in village Paranth, her husband Babu had gone to her maternal house to invite guests. She heard the sound of screaming of her husband from the side of the bungalow situated in front of her house and when Geeta and Bhuri came out from the house, they saw that Gopal was beating her husband with a farsa, Santosh with a luhangi. Her husband was telling that they have not returned one thousand rupees from last twelve months and are beating him. When Geeta and her daughter Bhuri went to save, Santosh gave Geetabai two-three luhangi blows continuously. Due to which, she suffered injuries on her head, left hand and ribs on the right side. She fell down and Gopal started beating her husband Babu with farsa and Santosh with luhangi . Due to which, he suffered greivous injuries on his neck at left side, left eye and forehead, as a result of which, he died. Ramgir (PW-10) and Laxman (PW-9) were present at the time of quarrel and saw the incident. Accused Santosh and Gopal after the incident ran away from the spot. On getting the information about the quarrel at village paranth, the police after making entries in Rojnamcha, reached the spot. The Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-8) was lodged by the complainant Geetabai (PW-5) which was registered at Crime No.0/12 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, and 34 of IPC . Thereafter, the FIR (Exh. P-1) was registered at Crime No.82/2012 at Police Station Bamori for the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 323 and 34 of IPC . Orignal Marg Case No.09/2012 was registered. Upon completion of investigation including recording of police statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. The charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of IPC .
3. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for trial. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited documents P/1 to P/20, while the defence did not examine any witness.
4. The learned Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as mentioned above.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
6. Learned counsel for appellant while taking exception to the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the Sessions Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. The case of prosecution is based on interested witnesses despite, the trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The prosecution story is belied by medical evidence. In the alternative, it is submitted that since, the incident took place all of a sudden on a very trivial issue, therefore, the act of the appellant would come within the purview of Section 304 Part I of IPC and he has already suffered about 12 years' incarceration, and therefore, the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and no interfer
