AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The sole Appellant was prosecuted for the charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Janki Prasad Mehta. Learned trial court held the Appellant guilty and convicted him for committing offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
The case was initiated on the basis of the ferdbeyan of Brahamdeo Prasad Mehta, who happened to be the brother-in-law of the deceased residing in the same house.
According to the prosecution case the deceased Janki Prasad Mehta was a constable and at the relevant time he was posted as treasury guard. In 14.03.2002, at about 10:00 p.m. deceased had came home from duty took meal and went to sleep. At about 12 in the night, the informant said to have heard a knocking sound (khat-khat) in the room where the deceased was sleeping. When he went there, he found the mosquito stick fallen and the deceased was laying flat on the bed with bleeding head injury. The informant raised alarm and several persons from neighbourhood assembled. In the ferdbeyan, it was also mentioned that earlier in the evening at about 8:00 P.M. the Appellant Anant Kumar Mehta, who is next door neighbour and was in visiting term had come to their house and was preparing litti (a local delicacy) in the kitchen. The informant claimed that some unknown person killed Janki Prasad Mehta due to enmity. On the said basis, a case was registered u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown person.
Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant.
Charge u/s 302 was framed against the Appellant. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. He was put on trial. In his examination u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he denied to have committed any offence. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the case on suspicion.
The prosecution in order to establish the said charge against the Appellant altogether examined seven witnesses. P.W.-1 Harita Mehta, wife of the deceased, P.W-2 Brahamdeo Prasad Mehta, brother of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 Akshay Kumar & P.W.-4 Subhash Kumar, were examined as witnesses of seizure list, P.W.-5 Satyadeo Singh, is the I.O., P.W.-6, is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W.-7 Depeeka Kumari, is the daughter of the informant who turned hostile.
The prosecution also proved ferdbeyan (Ext-1), formal F.I.R. (Ext-4), Seizure list (Ext-5) and the signatures on the seizure list (Ext-3 Series), Signature of witness P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 on the seizure list which were proved as Ext-2 and 2/1. The alleged seized materials is said to be brought as evidence and marked as material Exhibits. Ext-I is the wooden piece said to be broken part of axe, Ext-II - blood stained pillow cover, Ext-III - bottle containing ether, Ext-IV - an axe with broken wooden handle and Ext-v - one iron sabbal.
Learned tried court on the conclusion of the trial held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the Appellant by examining P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 coupled with the production of incriminating articles which go to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused-Appellant. On that basis, learned trial court convicted the Appellant for committing the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of the Court below and submitted that P.W.-1 Harita Mehta in her deposition alleged that she has witnessed this Appellant giving fatal blow on the person of the deceased but curiously enough the F.I.R. was lodged against the unknown person. Obviously, nobody had seen the occurrence. P.W.-1 cannot be an eye-witness. Her testimony, as eye-witness, thus, as to be discarded. According to the prosecution, several persons of the neighbourhood assembled on raising alarm out not a single independent witness of the neighbourhood in person has been examined by the prosecution. The motive is completely absent. The seizure has not been proved by seizure witnesses. P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have stated that they put their signature on the piece of paper at the dictate of the police and the contents of the said papers were not disclosed to them. Both of the seizure witnesses, therefore, have been declared hostile. P.W.-2 has himself admitted that he has not seen the occurrence. The I.O., who is said to have rushed the place of occurrence after getting information at about 12 in the night, was not told by the P.W.-1 or anybody else the name of the assailant. P.W.-7 who is the daughter of the informant has not supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. The deposition of doctor (P.W.-6) remains uncorroborated in absence of evidence regarding manner of assault and the weapon used in the incident. Learned Counsel submitted that this is a case of no evidence and on that basis conviction of the Appellant cannot be sustain.
Learned A.P.P. as also learned Counsel appearing for the informant, on the other hand, supported, the impugned judgment of the learned trial court. It has been submitted that P.W.-1, the wife of the deceased is the eye witness. She herself saw the accused Appellant inflicted grievous injury on the person of her husband. On seeing the said scene, she became unconscious and fell down and there was no occasion to disclose the name, when her brother informed the police about the incident P.W -2 has corroborated the prosecution version as also the use of weapon and the manner of assault has also been corroborated by the evidence. Several grievous injuries were found on the face of the deceased. The circumstances linked together collectively establish the guilt of the Appellant. The learned court below on proper appreciation of the evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant.
Having heard the learned Counsel, we, closely scrutinized the evidences and material on record. P.W.-1, though claimed to be eye-witness disclosed the name of the accused at the subsequent stage. The informant P.W.-2 has stated that his sister P.W.-1 told him that the deceased came, took meal and went to sleep at about 10:30 night. It is amazing as to when that part of story was told to the informant why name of the accused at that time was suppressed by her. Inspite of an anxious probe into evidences and materials, we do not find any excuse for not disclosing the name of the Appellant to the informant when the first part of the fact regarding the deceased''s arrival late night, taking his meal and going to bed was told to the informant by P.W.1. When the first part of the story was narrated by the P.W.-1 to the informant, it is evident that she was fully conscious and the prosecution version that she was unconscious at that time and she was not able to disclose the name of the accused-Appellant is false. We find force in the submission of the Appellant''s counsel that: the statement of the P.W.-1 regarding the assault by the accused Appellant is deliberate concoction. P.W.-2 admittedly came later on when he heard the knocking sound in the room of the deceased. In Paragraph-3, he has clearly stated that he has not seen the occurrence. There is no other corroboration on record. The only natural witness Depeeka Kumari (P.W.-7) is the daughter of the informant has not supported the prosecution version. P.W.-3 & P.W.-4 are said to be seizure list witnesses but they have denied the witness of seizure by the police. In their deposition in Paragraph-1, P.W.-3 stated that he put his signature as police asked to do so but the contents of the paper was not disclosed to them. Nothing was seized in their presence. P.W.-4 Subash Kumar also in the same vein similarly stated that nothing was seized in his presence and he had not given any statement regarding the occurrence before the police. Though, the said witness has proved the signature on seizure list as Ext-2 & 2/1. Yet in presence of the clear denial about the seizure, the same is not of any use and help for prosecution. P.W.-5 I.O., in Paragraph-1, proves ferdbeyan Ext-3, formal F.I.R. Ext-4 and also proved the seizure list and the inquest report Ext-6. In Paragraph-2 he stated that he found pool of blood on the bed and blood stained on the pillow but curiously the bed was not seized. Though the pillow cover is said to be seized and produced as material Ext-II but there was no chemical examination of the same. The other material Exhibits, broken wooden parts of axe and one axe with broken handle, Material Ext-I and Material Ext-IV, one ether bottle Material Ext-III and iron sabal (Khanti) Material Ext-V with blood stained is said to be seized from the P.O. but the same has not also been chemically examined. In Paragraph-10, he admitted that he had not seized the bed and in Paragraph-11 he said he had seized the pillow cover and other material exhibits but there was no chemical examination of the said articles. In Paragraph-14, he has stated that he did not taken statement of person of neighbourhood namely Bindeshwari Prasad and Mahendra Prasad. The doctor (P.W.-6) who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries with surgical stitches (External) :
(i) Dried blood smear present on the face, neck, both shoulder, upper arm right.
(ii) Surgical stitch on the left side of the fact. Outer Canthus of the left eye, size -1" x 1/4" x cranial cavity.
(iii) Surgical stitch on the forehead left side, size 1" x 1/4" x cranial cavity.
(iv) Surgical stitch on the left eye brow near midline 1" x 1/2" x Cranial cavity.
(v) Surgical stitch on the front of the left ear 2" x 1/4" x Cranial cavity.
There is no evidence on record regarding the stitches of the injuries though it has coma in the evidence that the deceased was first admitted to Hospital for treatment but the doctor who treated him and had occasion to see him first, has not been examined. P.W.-6 had seen only the surgical stitched wound.
We, therefore, find no cogent and clinching evidence to even remotely find the needle of guilt indicating towards the Appellant. Neither we find any eye witness nor the links of the circumstantial evidences forming complete chain to support the prosecution version in order to establish the charge against the Appellant. Learned trial court has erroneously ignored the said vital legal aspects and tried to fill up the lacunae of the prosecution case by supplying presumptive reasons, contrary to the settled legal principles. The impugned judgment of the learned trial court, thus cannot sustain and conviction and sentence of the Appellant cannot be maintained. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant above named, is set aside. The Appellant above named, be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.