Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27264

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
N/A, J
Dashrath S/o Hariram – Appellant
Versus
Hariram S/o Motilal Jaat – Respondent
CRA No.1150/2012 | CRA No.1165/2012 | CRA No.985/2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N/A
For the Respondents: N/A

Witness testimonies of relatives are admissible in criminal cases; minor inconsistencies do not negate their reliability if credible evidence supports the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374 and 378 - Murder conviction - Appellants convicted for the murder of 'Nanji' based on eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence, contrary to claims of false implication and inconsistencies in witness testimonies - The prosecution established culpability through credible evidence, leading to sentencing of the appellants - The acquittal of co-accused Hariram upheld due to lack of evidence linking him to the murder. (Paras 54-60)

(B) Evidence - Credibility - Witness testimonies of relatives admissible; inconsistencies minor and not fatal to the prosecution's case. (Paras 30, 41)

(C) Judiciary - Judicial principles - High courts must provide reasoning for decisions, particularly in appeals against acquittals; presumption of innocence upheld unless compelling evidence necessitates interference. (Paras 56-59)

Facts of the case:
The conviction arose from an incident on 04.08.2009, where Nanji was murdered during an assault by the appellants while he was with his son, Shriram. The assailants used lethal weapons, resulting in numerous injuries to Nanji. Eyewitnesses, including those closely related to the victim, testified to the events leading up to the murder. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence establishing the roles of the appellants in the assault on Nanji and confirmed the trial court's judgment convicting them, while deeming the acquittal of Hariram correct due to insufficient evidence against him. (Paras 54-60)

Issues: The core issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness accounts, the presence or absence of corroborating physical evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies being family members, and procedural compliance concerning FIR dispatch. (Paras 11, 30, 56-58)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of eyewitness testimony from relatives does not preclude reliable evidence; minor inconsistencies do not undermine the case's foundation; the court primarily upheld trial court findings when substantial evidence supported convictions. (Paras 56-59)

Result: Appeals dismissed; conviction of appellants confirmed and acquittal of Hariram upheld.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and background (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellants argue against conviction (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. state challenges acquittal of hariram (Para 7 , 8)
4. court reviews witness statements (Para 9 , 10)
5. key testimony of eyewitnesses discussed (Para 11 , 12)
6. evidence corroborated by eyewitness accounts (Para 13 , 14)
7. police response and documentation (Para 15 , 16)
8. issues regarding names in police reports (Para 17 , 18)
9. critical analysis of fir and its dispatch (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
10. court stresses importance of timely fir (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
11. witness credibility and related witness issues (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
12. addressing discrepancies among witness testimonies (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
13. court's perspective on related witness evidence (Para 37 , 38)
14. legality of rejecting testimony based on relationships (Para 39 , 40)
15. arguments related to injuries and postmortem findings (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
16. discussion on absence of blood on weapons (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
17. arguments around potential fabrication of evidence (Para 48 , 49)
18. court's analysis of evidence presented (Para 50 , 51 , 52)
19. conclusion on the appellants' motives and culpability (Para 53 , 54)
20. reasons for upholding acquittal of co-accused (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
21. final verdict and order of the court (Para 59 , 60)

1.The above criminal appeals are being decided by this common judgment as all the appellants of CRA. No.1150/2012 and CRA No.1165/2012 have been convicted and sentenced for murder of "Nanji" and CRA. No.985/2014 has been filed against the acquittal of accused- Hariram S/o Motilal Jaat. CRA. No.1150/2012 and CRA No.1165/2012 have been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and CRA. No.985/2014 has been filed under Section 378 of the (in short Y'Cr.P.CY') against the judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Session Trial No.566/2009 whereby the appellants of CRA. No.1150/2012 and CRA No.1165/2012 have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:-
In CRA.No.1150/2012, the conviction of the appellant Nos. (1) Dashrath and (3) Modiram S/o Hariram Jaat is as under:-

So far as appellant No.2- Radhakishan alias Rajaram is concerned, the details of his conviction is as under:-

In CRA. No.1165/2012, the conviction of the appellant Nos. (1) Modiram S/o Gangaram Jaat (2) Kailash and (3) Kamal alias Sandeep is as under:-

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.08.2009, at around 06:00 pm, the complainant- Shriram(PW-1), and his father Nanji(deceased) were riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.M.P.-13- MA/P9813 to their agricultural land to check Soyabean crop and apply pesticide on it. The motorcycle was being driven by Nanji, the complainant Shriram(PW-1) saw that all the accused persons were standing on the road along with deadly weapons- Dharia, Farsi, 12 bore gun, and Lathi in their hands, therefore, he asked his father Nanji to slow down the bike, after which, he(PW-1) jumped from the bike and ran to the other side, one of the accused persons, Rajaram fired upon the deceased Nanji and Nanji ran towards the agricultural land belonging to Modiram, where the Nanji(deceased) was surrounded by all the accused/appellants and they started assaulting Nanji, resulting in injuries all over his body using Dharia, Farsi and Laathi. The deceased Nanji received various grievous injuries and succumbed to his injuries and blood loss on the spot, which were caused by the accused persons. At the same time, Prithviraj(PW-2), Chainram, and Ganpat(PW-4), who were coming from the other side, and seeing them, the accused/appellants fled. Shriram(PW-1) narrated the whole incident to his uncle Prithviraj(PW-2), then Prithviraj informed the police about the said incident. After receiving the information about the incident, the same was entered in the general diary (Roznamcha Sanha) at entry No.170/04.08.2010 (Ex.D-7) by Shri Arvind Tambe, (PW-1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27264

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTN/A, JDashrath S/o Hariram – AppellantVersusHariram S/o Motilal Jaat – RespondentCRA No.1150/2012 | CRA No.1165/2012 | CRA No.985/2014

Witness testimonies of relatives are admissible in criminal cases; minor inconsistencies do not negate their reliability if credible evidence supports the prosecution's case.

Cases Referred (4)

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
N/A, J
Dashrath S/o Hariram – Appellant
Versus
Hariram S/o Motilal Jaat – Respondent
CRA No.1150/2012 | CRA No.1165/2012 | CRA No.985/2014