AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Appeal against conviction under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of appellant/accused Ram Kishan is directed against the judgment dated 08.09.2005 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No.193/2004; whereby accused Ram Kishan was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.2000/- and under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.2000/-. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under each of the aforesaid two provisions.
2 (a). The prosecution case in nutshell was that accused persons Ram Kishan, Govind, Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai were on inimical terms with deceased Bablu and his wife Kranti Bai for two months next before the date of the incident. They used to abuse Bablu and Kranti Bai while going from in front of their
house. At about 07:30 a.m. on 31.08.2004, accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai were returning after answering the call of nature. Deceased Bablu was going to work at Fateh Singh's place. His wife Kranti Bai and mother Jamuna Bai were also present on the
spot. At that time, accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai started to abuse the deceased and called accused persons Ram Kishan and Govind, who came to the spot armed with axe and ballam, respectively.
Accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai also went inside their house and returned with sticks. Ram Kishan and Govind assaulted deceased Bablu with axe and ballam, respectively. Ram Kishan and Govind inflicted several blows with axe and ballam upon hands, legs and chest of deceased Bablu. As a result, he died on the spot. His wife Kranti Bai ran in to rescue her husband. However, Ram Kishan also beat Kranti Bai with axe. As a result, she suffered injuries to her right hand, shoulder, left hand and right thigh.
Bablu's mother, also named Jamuna Bai, tried to rescue her son but accused Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai also beat her with sticks. As a result, she fell down. On hearing cries of Kranti Bai, her father-in-law Phool Singh, brother-in-law Balkishan, neighbour Fulwati Bai and other persons reached the spot and witnessed the incident.
(b). Kranti Bai informed Fateh Singh, who lodged first information report in P.S. Umraoganj District-Raisen at about 08:30 a.m., the same morning.
In the post-mortem examination, it was found that deceased Bablu had died a homicidal death as a result of excessive bleeding and incised wounds to his vital organ lungs. Hise wife Kranti Bai had sustained multiple incised wounds and when admitted to the hospital, she was in a serious condition due to profuse bleeding. Jamuna Bai, the mother of deceased Bablu, had also sustained a fracture in the metacarpal bone of her hand.
(c). During investigation, on the disclosure statement made under section 27 of the Evidence Act, by accused Ram Kishan, the axe used in the incident, was recovered from his house. Likewise, on the disclosure statement made by Govind, a ballam was recovered from his house. In the same manner, on the disclosure statements made by accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai, sticks used in the offence, were recovered. In the Serological examination conducted in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, blood was found on the axe and blood of human origin, was found on the ballam.
After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused persons Ram Kishan, Govind Singh, Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai under section 302, 307, 326, 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; however, it was held by learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 08.09.2005 that on the date of the offence, the age of accused Govind Singh was below 18 years; therefore, his trial was separated and the police was directed to file separate charge sheet against him before the Juvenile Justice Board. Learned Sessions Judge; thereafter, proceeded with the trial of remaining accused persons namely Ram Kishan, Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai.
A charge was framed against aforesaid three accused persons under sections 302, 307 and 325 and in the alternative 302, 307 and 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In their statements under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated as a result of previous enmity.
After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded findings to the effect that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries inflicted upon Bablu and Kranti Bai by accused persons Ram Kishan and Govind Singh had not been inflicted in furtherance of their common intention with co-accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai. It was also held that the prosecution had also failed to prove that accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai had participated in the incident in any manner or more specifically, had caused any injuries to Jamuna Bai, the mother of the deceased. It was also held that it was doubtful whether Jamuna Bai, the mother of deceased, had sustained any injuries in the incident.
Consequently, accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai were acquitted of all charges. However, the trial Court had held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that accused Ram Kishan had delivered axe blows to the deceased Bablu and his wife Kranti bai with the intention of causing their death; therefore, he was convicted under section 302 for committing murder of deceased Bablu and under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit murder of Kranti Bai and sentenced him as stated above.
Learned counsel for appellant Ram Kishan has assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that the trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of Balkishan (PW-1), who is brother of the deceased and Jamuna Bai (PW-2), who was mother of the deceased. Likewise, it did not place reliance upon the part of the testimony of Kranti Bai (PW-10) relating to the role of accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai in the incident. However, on the same body of evidence, appellant Ram Kishan was convicted. It has also been contended that the trial Court erred in holding that the injuries sustained by deceased Bablu were caused by appellant Ram Kishan.
As such, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of appellant Ram Kishan beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, he deserves the benefit of doubt.
Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the prosecution case.
On perusal of the record and due consideration of rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this appeal must fail for the reasons hereinafter stated:
The prosecution has examined four eyewitnesses namely Balkishan (PW-1), Jamuna Bai (PW-2), Daulat Bai (PW-5) and Kranti Bai (PW-10). Out of them, Kranti Bai (PW-10) and Jamuna Bai (PW-2) are said to be injured eyewitnesses. All four are related witnesses.
The gist of their evidence is that at the time of the incident deceased Bablu, husband of Kranti Bai (PW- 10), was leaving for work. At that time, accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai were going to ease themselves. On their way, they picked corn-cobs from the field of the deceased. An altercation ensued.
They shouted and called their father Ram Kishan and brother Govind Singh. Ram Kishan and Govind arrived on the spot armed with an axe and a ballam, respectively. Accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai were also armed with sticks. Ram Kishan and Goving assaulted Bablu with axe and Ballam cutting his chest open. When Kranti Bai tried to rescue her husband, Ram Kishan and Govind also assaulted
her. Ram Kishan delivered blows to her with axe. As a result, she sustained injuries in head, right hand and right leg. Govind also assaulted her with a ballam, resulting in injuries to her chest and head. Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai assaulted her in head, back and stomach with sticks. Jamuna Bai, the mother of the deceased, had reached the spot and she tried to intercede in the matter but accused persons Jamuna Bai and Narayani Bai also beat her with sticks. As a result, Bablu died on the spot and Kranti Bai fell unconscious.
Jamuna Bai, the mother of deceased, sustained injuries to metacarpal bone of her hand.
Though, Balkishan (PW-1), claimed in his statement that he had witnessed the incident; he is brother of deceased Bablu and was as such a related witness; therefore, it is incumbent upon the Court to scrutinize his statement minutely. Daulat Bai (PW-5) is wife of Balkishan (PW-1). Daulat Bai (PW-5) has admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of the incident, her husband Balkishan had gone to work at Fateh Singh's place. As such, he was not present on the spot. In view of this clear admission made by his wife Daulat Bai that he was not present on the spot, it may not be safe to infer that had Balkishan had actually witnessed the incident as it unfolded. He was probably called later and on arrival he was told about the incident by the eyewitnesses and he had also seen his brother Bablu and Kranti Bai in injured condition.
Likewise, on due appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has held that Jamuna Bai, the mother of deceased, had also reached the spot later but posed as an eyewitness. As such, the presence of aforesaid two eyewitnesses namely Balkishan (PW-1) and his mother Jamuna Bai (PW-2) on the spot was held to be doubtful.
So far as Kranti Bai (PW-10) is concerned, she is an injured eyewitness. She had sustained severe injuries. It appears from the statement of medical witnesses that she was on the verge of dying due to injuries sustained by her in the incident; therefore, her presence on the spot could not be doubted. However, trial Court has disbelieved even her statement so far as participation of accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai in the incident was concerned because of two material discrepancies in her statements. Firstly that Kranti Bai did not disclose in her statement before the police (Ex.D/4) that the incident occurred because Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai were stealing corn-cobs from her field and secondly that as per the prosecution story, accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai were going to ease themselves. Kranti Bai has admitted in her testimony that they were carrying Jugs (Lotas) which appears to be natural. However, Kranti Bai has further stated that after the altercation started, accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai went home and returned with sticks. This part of the statement has been disbelieved by the trial Court; therefore, on these and other grounds, participation of Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai in the incident was held to be doubtful and they were extended the benefit of doubt.
The trial Court has relied upon the statement of
Kranti Bai and Daulat Bai, so far as role of appellant Ram Kishan in the incident was concerned. The trial Court has believed only that part of the statement of Kranti Bai which was supported by medical evidence; therefore, the statements of eyewitnesses that accused persons Narayani Bai and Jamuna Bai had also assaulted the deceased with sticks has been disbelieved because no injury caused by hard and blunt object was found on the dead body of the deceased. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the trial Court.
So far as appellant Ram Kishan is concerned,
Kranti Bai has stated that he was carrying an axe. He assaulted deceased Bablu with axe and Govind assaulted him with a ballam. In the post-mortem examination, three incised wounds were found on the dead body of the deceased. These were deep wounds.
As a result, the lungs of the deceased had ruptured. As per Dr. S.S. Rajput (PW-7), who had conducted post-mortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Bablu, aforesaid injuries were caused by a heavy, sharp edged weapon. In the cross-examination, he has categorically ruled out the possibility that such injuries could have been caused by a ballam. In these circumstances, it is absolutely clear that the injuries resulting in the death of the deceased were caused by appellant Ram Kishan. The injury no.1 was so deep that it had not only cut the ribs but had also cut the lungs.
Thus, it can safely be inferred that aforesaid injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. Two other deep injuries were caused to the deceased with the same weapon on the shouder and
neck. Thus, the conclusions are inescapable that:
(i) the injuries were caused by appellant Ram Kishan;
(ii) they were caused with the intention of causing the death of deceased Bablu or at any rate with the intention of causing such injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
So far Kranti Bai (PW-10) is concerned, she was
an injured eyewitness. As per Dr. Alok Shrivastava (PW-8), when Kranti Bai (PW-10) was brought to him, she was in a state of semi-consciousness due to excessive bleeding. He had found five deep incised wounds on the hand, left thigh, left eyebrow and palm of her hand. As a result of injury no.1, the muscles, blood vessels and median nerve of her hand were cut.
Her condition was serious; therefore, she was directly shifted to the operation theater without x-ray examination. All injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. The witness was also eight months pregnant. Both Kranti Bai (PW-10) and Daulat Bai (PW-5) have stated clearly that these injuries were caused by appellant Ram Kishan. Thus, she was brutally assaulted by the appellant Ramkishan with axe.
As such, the trial Court has rightly held that the injuries were caused to Kranti Bai by appellant Ram Kishan with such intention and under such circumstances that if witness Kranti Bai had died, appellant Ram Kishan would have been guilty of murder.
On the basis of foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear that the trial Court had committed no error in placing reliance upon the testimony of eyewitness Kranti Bai (PW-10) and Daulat Bai (PW-5) so far as role of appellant Ram Kishan in the incident was concerned. Thus, on the basis of direct evidence as well as on the basis of medical evidence, the prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Ram Kishan had committed murder of deceased Bablu and had attempted to commit murder of his wife Kranti Bai.
Thus, the trial Court has committed no error in convicting appellant Ram Kishan under section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, also not appears to be disproportionate. Hence, there are no grounds for interfering with the impugned judgment.
Consequently, this criminal appeal against conviction fails. The conviction of appellant Ram Kishan under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court for aforesaid offences, is affirmed.
For the able assistance rendered by Shri S.D.
Mishra, Advocate to this Court as amicus curiae, we direct the M.P. State Legal Services Authority to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the learned amicus curiae as honorarium for defending the appellant in the present appeal.