Bhagwan Das And Two Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Conviction,Sentence

U/s 302/34 of IPC,"Imprisonment for life.Fine of Rs.1000/-

each.

U/s 325/34 of IPCÂ Â,"R.I. for 3 years, fine of

Rs.100/- each.

lathi. It is further stated that her husband had also received injury on the forehead and multiple injuries on his person. In para 2 of her statement, she",

had stated that her husband Shiv Kumar had received injuries on head and all the three accused persons were beating Shivkumar. She has stated that,

at that time Leela Bai her daughter in law and mother-in-law also reached the spot. P.W.2 Shiv Kumar is injured eye witness. He has also deposed,

that Bhagwan Das was armed with axe and other two appellants were having lathis in their hands. He also deposed that Bhagwan Das had given lathi,

blow on the head of his father and also hit him and the other appellants were beating his father with the help of lathis. In para 3 of his statement, he",

stated that all the three accused persons had also beat him with the help of axe and lathi. The statement of these eye witnesses further gets,

corroborated by the statement of Leela Bai P.W.3.,

The victim-injured were examined by Medical Officer Dr. Rajendra Jain who was working as Medical Officer in Community Health Centre. He,

examined the deceased Premnarayan and also witness Shiv Kumar. Medical Report is Exhibit P/8. He had noted lacerated wound admeasuring,

4x1x1cm vertically on the right side of head. The injury No.2 was also lacerated wound admeasuring 4x1x1cm vertical on Occipital part of head. The,

injury No.3 was also lacerated wound admeasuring 3 ½ x1x1 cm vertical on occipital part of left side of head. The injury No.4 was contusion,

admeasuring 10x11 cm on lower part of back side of the body. Patient was unconscious and therefore, he was referred to Medical College, Bhopal.",

All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. He had also examined Shiv Kumar injured witness P.W.2. He found contusions and swelling of,

about 4x4cm on occipital part of right side of head due to which his right ear was bleeding. Injury No.2 was swelling and contusion admeasuring,

10x6cm on left elbow. Both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. He was also referred to Medical College. After the death of,

Premnarayan, the postmortem was conducted by Dr. Ashok Sharma, who was examined as P.W.11. The injuries are reproduced herein below:-",

       Â,

“1- ,d jsy iVjh uqek eqnk pksV ck, iqVBs ij ckgj dh vksj 6x2",

ls-eh- vkdkj es uhyk cSxuh jax fy;s gq, AÂ Â Â",

2- eqnk pksV] pksV dza01 ds 2 ls-eh- ckgj dh vksj 12 ls-eh O;kl dk vkdkj fy;s gq, uhyk cSaxuh jax fy, gq, ik;k AÂ",

3- eqnk pksV uhyk csxuh jax fy;s gq, o [Ajksp fy;s gq, nk;us da?sij 5 ls-eh O;kl esa AÂ Â Â Â Â Â",

4- jsy iVjh uqek eqnk pksV ck, iqVBs ij pksV da01 ds 6 ls-eh- uhps vkdkj 4x2 ls-eh- uhyk csaxuh jax fy;s gq, AÂ",

5- nk;us ekFAs ij 'kY; fdz;k }kjk Vkds yxk gq, QVk gqvk ?ko ftlds fdukjs [Ajksp fy;s gq, ik, vkdkj 5x1 ls-",

eh- peMh dh xgjkbZ fy;s gq, A      Â",

6- flj ds nkbZuh vksj isjkbVy LFAku ij 'kY; fd;k }kjk Vkdk yxk QVk ?Ako ftlds fdukjs [Ajksp fy;s gq, vkdkj 5x1",

ls-eh- peMh dh xgjkbZ fy;s gq, AÂ Â Â Â Â Â",

7- 'kY; fdz;k }kjk Vkdk yxk QVk ?Ako nk;us dku ij 2x1 ls- eh- vkdkj esa fdukjs [Ajksp fy;s gq, AÂ Â Â Â",

8- 'kY; fdz;k }kjk Vkdk yxk QVk HAkxk ck;sa isjkbVy LFAku ij 4x1 ls-eh- vkdkj esa fdukjs [Ajksp fy;s gq, Aâ€​ Â",

He had found that some injuries were already stitched while providing them first medical aid in Primary Health Centre. The injury No.7 and 8 which,

were lacerated wounds, were already stitched. The injury No.7 was near ear and Injury No.8 was on the left parietal region. The size was 4x1 cm.",

The axe has been seized on the disclosure statement of the accused Bhagwan Das vide Exhibit P/20. Whereas, the lathis were seized on the",

disclosure statement of other appellants. The seizure of weapons have not been supported by the Seizure witnesses who turned hostile. The seizure,

witness P.W.4 Mahendra Singh was declared hostile. The Investigating Officer P.W.14 Manoj Dubey in para 16 stated that he arrested the accused,

persons. On the memorandum of accused Bhagwan Das, the axe was recovered from a concealed place. In the same manner on the memorandum of",

Bhaiyyaji and Ramkishan, the lathis were seized. Thus, the testimony of eye witness Komal Bai and injured witness P.W. 2 Shiv Kumar is",

corroborated with the testimony of other witnesses and also by the medical evidence and the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Jain (P.W.8) and Dr. Ashok,

Sharma (P.W.11) who conducted the postmortem. There is no merit in the contention of the appellants that since no injury of sharp edged weapon is,

found in the medical report of the deceased, there is inconsistency and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.",

In the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016)4 SCC 357 it has been held that in the case of,

inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally",

irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence,",

the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-Ã -vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony,

improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. The Court had followed the law laid down in the case",

of Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476.",

In the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P.-(2016)10 SCC 220 the Apex Court has held that in the case of contradiction between medical,

evidence and ocular testimony of a witness, the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-Ã -vis medical evidence, when medical",

evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. Thus, if it completely",

rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved, as discussed in the presiding paragraph. In the",

present case, the testimony of eye witness is corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses and the seizure etc., merely because no injury caused",

by the sharp weapon has been found, entire prosecution case cannot be discarded.",

In the present case, the weapon which is used for committing the offence is an axe. Axe is a peculiar kind of weapon. We must realize that an",

axe is not a weapon like sword, knife etc. It is basically used for chopping wood. It has a heavy metal blade and a light wooden handle, which make it",

a top heavy weapon. The heavy metal blade has several aspects. The back side of the blade is flat, admeasuring about 3 inches square. It tapers",

towards the front until it ends in a sharp edge admeasuring about 3 inches. Thus viewed from the top the blade looks triangular. The wooden handle,

fits in the broader part of the triangle. The broader part (postero-lateral part of the blade) of the triangle has two broad 'V' shaped edges. The lateral,

aspects of the blade are also long and flat. The wooden handle which fits into the blade, is cylindrical, long, smooth and slippery. It is something like",

longer version of handle of a Cricket bat but without the rubberized grip. Since, an axe is top heavy and its handle is round, hard, smooth and slippery,",

it is liable to turn in the hands easily. If the sharp edge of the blade lands on the target, incised wound would be caused. If the axe turns in the hands of",

the wielder and the blade lands on the back side or lateral side, contusion would be caused. If the blades lands on any of its postero-lateral 'V' shaped",

edges, lacerated wound may be caused. If the blade misses the target altogether and the axe lands on the handle, contusion may be caused.",

Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that if incised wound was not caused, axe was not used and the eye witness is telling a lie. Again, the argument that",

the if the axe was not used from the sharp side, the prosecution must come up with such a specific case, is fallacious. All that an injured eye witness",

is expected to see is that axe was used in assault. He cannot be expected to realize which aspect of the blade or handle actually struck him. The same,

is true for a witness who is watching the incident from a distance.,

The present case is based on the testimony of the injured eye witness Shiv Kumar (P.W.2); the evidence of Komal Bai P.W.1 and Shiv Kumar,

P.W.2 are consistent and coherent. The injuries received by the deceased shows that the multiple injuries have been received by the deceased caused,

by hard and blunt object. The facts born out from the case have established that the appellant No.1 was carrying axe whereas, the other appellants",

were armed with lathi.,

In view of the aforesaid and taking into consideration the direct evidence of eye witness P.W.1 Komal Bai and P.W.2 Shiv Kumar, the injured",

witness, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.",

In view of the aforesaid conspectus, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by",

the impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.,