Bharat Singh And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Secti on,Act,Imprisonment,Fine,In default of fine

302,"Indian Penal

Code","R.I. for Life

Imprisonment","Rs.

40,000/-","R.I. for two

years

336,"Indian Penal

Code",R.I. for 03 months,Rs.200/-,R.I. for 15 days

427,"Indian Penal

Code","R.I. for two

years","Rs.2,000/-","R.I. for four

months

Man Singh (PW-12) also stated that he had enmity with the appellants/respondents for their land dispute. He reached on the spot during the,,,,

incident, he saw his daughter was burning and respondents were present there. At that time/just after the incident, her wife Shanta Bai (PW-7) told",,,,

him that the appellants/respondents ablaze their daughter by pouring kerosene oil on her.,,,,

Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents has submitted that Dr. Gupta opined that the death of the deceased may be homicidal. After,,,,

considering the circumstances, it is not established that the appellants/ respondents committed murder of the deceased. In other hand, circumstances",,,,

and opinion of Doctor did not establish that Komal Bai has committed suicide. After considering the entire evidence on record, we are not inclined to",,,,

accept this contention because Komal Bai has no reason to commit suicide. If she committed suicide, it was committed inside her house. Further that,",,,,

none of the family members of Komal Bai admitted this suggestion in favour of the appellants/respondents. No other villagers gave such evidence.,,,,

Doctor only accept possibility. He had not given any conclusive opinion for the suicidal death of the deceased.,,,,

In case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar vs. State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 66, the Supreme Court has held as under:-",,,,

“It is settled law that oral evidence takes precedence over medical evidence, unless latter completely refutes any possibility of such occurrence.â€​",,,,

Therefore, in the light of above principle, similar principle laid down in cases of Rakesh vs. State of M.P. (2011) 9 SCC 698, Kathi Bharat Vajsur Vs.",,,,

State of Gujrat (2012) 5 SCC 724.,,,,

We are of the opinion that the death of the deceased was not suicidal. We may have to observe the injuries noted by the doctor during the medical,,,,

examination on the body of the deceased. There is rare possibility in the suicidal case. Hairs of the deceased are totally burnt.,,,,

S.N. Pandey (PW-15) seized burnt clothes of the deceased. He found kerosene smell from it. He prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/3). On the spot,",,,,

he recovered broken kavelu and stones which were used by the appellants/respondents earlier. He also found the door of the deceased was broken.,,,,

On 22.11.2006, he recovered container of kerosene oil from the house of the appellant-Gajraj Singh vide seizure memo (Ex.P/20). He prepared spot",,,,

map. As per spot map (Ex.P/18) incident took place on the road in front of Kailash Patel house. There is no possibility appeared from the evidence on,,,,

record that the deceased committed suicide.,,,,

Learned counsel for the appellants/respondents contended that the conduct of close relatives of the deceased is unnatural. They are not tried to,,,,

save her daughter. In other hand, the crime of the appellants was heinous. They all are together with their common intention to kill their rivalry party.",,,,

Hence, naturally family members of the deceased are worried about their safety and they were under fear of the appellants. In such circumstances, it",,,,

cannot be expected from any unarmed persons to put themselves in danger.,,,,

Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there are so many omissions, contradictions in the testimony of eye witnesses. We are",,,,

not inclined to accept this contention because such omissions and contradictions are not material. In case of Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar vs.,,,,

State of Maharashtra (2018) 3 SCC 66, the Supreme Court has held as under:-",,,,

“In every criminal trial, normally discrepancies are bound to occur due to long lapse of time between the date of incident and deposition of",,,,

witnesses before Court. When contradictions are so serious and create doubt in the mind of Court about truthfulness of statements, then such",,,,

evidence is not safe to rely upon. However, contradictions in evidence concerning instant case are very trivial in nature. Hence, it will not affect case",,,,

of prosecution.â€​Â,,,,

All the seized articles were sent for FSL examination by the Investigating Officer, S.N. Pandey (PW-15). As per FSL report (Ex. P/32) particles",,,,

of kerosene oil were found on the goods.,,,,

We are in opinion that learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for committing murder of Komal Bai by ablaze her. Learned trial Court,,,,

acquitted respondents Inder Singh and Rajendra Singh from the charges levelled against them on the grounds that all the witnesses mainly involved the,,,,

appellants Bharat Singh and Gajraj Singh with the crime. In para 18 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court relied on the plea of alibi in favour",,,,

of the respondents Rajendra Singh and Inder Singh.,,,,

In case of Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana (2017) 14 SCC 711, the Supreme Court has held as under:-",,,,

“Reappreciation/reappraisal of evidence is not required where there is no perversity in findings of the Courts belowâ€​,,,,

In present case, we do not find any perversity or illegality with regard to acquittal of respondents. In appeal against acquittal, the High Court may",,,,

set aside the order of acquittal. After considering the defence evidence adduced by the respondents, we come to the conclusion that it is not justifiable",,,,

to interfere with the order of acquittal.,,,,

Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1453/2008 filed by the State is hereby dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.1040/2008 filed by the appellants is",,,,

also hereby dismissed. Appellants are in jail.,,,,

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.,,,,