AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is preferred by the convict/appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.03.2014 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda-Bazar, District Baloda-Bazar, in Sessions Trial No. 60/2013 whereby the convict/appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.02.2011, the marriage procession (Barat) of Rakesh Nishad of village Rasauta was going in the vehicle i.e. Swaraz Mazda bearing registration No. CG-04-J-8890 belonging to Pannalal Sonkar of village Pathariya. In this vehicle, the appellant and Komal Verma and few other villagers were also there. The cargo space of the said vehicle was 4 feet in height and was open from the top without there being any tarpaulin cover. In the evening at about 4 to 4:30 pm, when the said vehicle reached somewhere near the Karhi Bazar Police Chowki Tiraha near Paddy Purchase Centre, the appellant threw the deceased Komal Verma over the shoulders out of the vehicle, who was standing by the side of the cargo space. Because of such act, the deceased sustained injuries on his head who was taken to the Government Hospital, Balodabazar and from there he was taken to Balaji Hospital, Raipur. From Balaji Hospital, Raipur, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Raipur where the deceased died.
On the basis of the information given by the ward boy of the Medical College Hospital, Raipur, first merg intimation bearing No. 0/2011 (Ex. P-19) was recorded on 25.02.2011 at 11:55 hours by police of Police Station, Maudahapara, Raipur and thereafter, another merg intimation bearing No. 26/2011 (Ex. P-20) was recorded by the police of Police Station, Balodabazar on 02.03.2011 at 11:55 hours .
On 25.02.2011, inquest report (Exhibit P-9) was prepared by the police of Police Station Maudahapara, Raipur after issuing notice to five persons in accordance with Section 175 of the CrPC after which the dead body was sent to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur for postmortem.
On 25.02.2011 at 11:55 hours, Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-23) conducted the postortem on the body of the deceased. In the postmortem report (Exhibit P-16), the following injuries were found:
“ Scalp shows dark red colour ecchymosis present on both right parietal and occipital region all over. Skull separation of left parietotemporal and lambdoid suture with gapping, fracture of right side posterior and both middle cranial fossa left petrous part of temporal bone. u/n EDH present. Massive subdural and subarchnoid hemorrhage present all over. Contusion present on right occipital and parietal and temporal lobes. 10X6 cm sagitally and cerebellum and pons contused all around contusion brain matter softened. Lateral and 3rd ventrical contains little amount of clotted blood.
Contused lacerated wound present on right knee ant. 3X2x1 cm, underneath red color ecchymosis present.
Injuries were caused with hard and blunt object.
All injuries shows dark red colour ecchymosis.
Injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.”
The Doctors opined that the death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury and their complications. The duration of death was estimated to be within 24 hours from the time of postmortem and the duration of injuries were estimated to be within 24 hours prior to death.
A spot map (Exhibit P-11) was prepared by the Patwari namely Shivnath Sahu (PW-17) on 05.05.2011.
On the basis of the aforesaid merg intimations (Exhibit P-19 and P-20), FIR (Ex. P-21) bearing No. 127/2011 was registered on 08.04.2011 at 10:15 hours by the police of Police Station, Balodabazar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was arrested on 09.04.2011 (Exhibit P/22) by the Investigating Officer, Mr. B.R.Mandavi (PW-27) and the intimation regarding his arrest was also duly given to his father (Exhibit P-23) by the IO.
During the course of investigation, the vehicle i.e. Swaraz Mazda 407 LPT alongwith the documents i.e. the registration certificate, insurance papers, fitness certificate, and permit and the keys of the vehicle were seized from the owner Pannalal Sonkar (PW-18) on 12.06.2011 at 11:00 a.m. and the vehicle was got inspected mechanically (Exhibit P-17) by Mahendra Kumar Patel (PW-24) on 13.06.2011.
The statement of the witnesses were also recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC.
After due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of the CrPC on 16.06.2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baloldabazar, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned Trial Court on 23.07.2011. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence that he has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question and prayed for trial.
Among others, the prosecution filed the following documents:
Crime Details Form (Exhibit P-1)
Statement of PW-4, Lakhan (Exhibit P-2)
Statement of PW-5, Gowardhan (Exhibit P-3) Statement of PW-7, Niranjan (Exhibit P-4)
Statement of PW-8, Puranlal (Exhibit P-5) Statement of PW-9, Rewaram (Exhibit P-6) Statement of PW-11, Hiraram (Exhibit P-7)
Summons under Section 175 of the CrPC (Exhibit P-8) Inquest Report (Exhibit P-9)
Statement of PW-12, Shobharam (Exhibit P-10) Spot Map (Exhibit P-11)
Property seizure memo (Exhibit P-12 and P-13) Application for postmortem (Exhibit P-14)
Duty Certificate (Exhibit P-15)
Postmortem Report (Exhibit P-16)
Vehicle Mechanical Report (Exhibit P-17)
Death intimation given to the SHO, Mahaudapara by the Hospital (Exhibit P-18)
Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-19 and P-20) First Information Report (Exhibit P-21) Arrest memo (Exhibit P-22)
Arrest information (Exhibit P-23)
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the witnesses namely Umed Singh (PW-1), Tiju Ram (PW-2), Hira Das Mandle (PW-3), Lakhan (PW-4), Gowardhan (PW-5), Nilkanth (PW-6), Niranjan (PW-7), Puranlal (PW-8), Rewaram (PW-9), Hiralal (PW-10), Hira Ram (PW-11), Shobha Ram (PW-12), Banshi Lal (PW-13), Tukaram (PW-14), Vasudev (PW-15), Sohag Singh (PW-16), Shivnath Sahu (PW-17), Pannalal Sonkar (PW-18), Shravan (PW-19), Ramesh (PW-20), L.R.Giri (PW-21), Nilu Ram Diwan (PW-22), Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-23), Mahendra Kumar (PW-24), Bhuneshwar (PW-25), Dr. Rajendra Agrawal (PW-26) and B.R.Mandavi (PW-27).
The statement of the convict/appelant under section 313 CrPC was recorded in which he was asked as many as 114 questions to which either he replied expressing his ignorance or that it was false. Lastly, he has stated that he is innocent, he has been falsely implicated and a case of accident has been turned into a case of murder.
In order to prove his innocence, Rewaram (DW-1) who is the father of the appellant, deposed in support of the appellant stating that on an earlier occasion, he was a witness in a case and had deposed against Bhurwa @ Hiradas Mandle (PW-3) who had committed dacoity in the house of Deendayal. He also deposed that he alongwith Tukaram (PW-14), Neelkanth (PW-6) and Sarpanch Hiralal (PW-10) and Banshi (PW-13) had taken a pond on auction. Hiralal used to maintain the accounts but did not give any information about the accounts to him. Hiralal had also a Brewery (Sharab Bhatti) and because of him, the said Brewery had to be closed down which caused the entire village to be divided into two parties.
The appellant had also exhibited the police statements of the following witnesses in order to prove his innocence, namely PW-1, Umend Singh Dhurandhar Rewaram (Exhibit D-1), PW-2, Tiju Ram (Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-3), PW-3, Hiradas (Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-5), PW-10, Hiralal Nishad (Exhibit D-6), PW-13, Banshilal (Exhibit D-7), PW-14, Tukaram Nishad (Exhibit D-8), PW-16, Sohag Singh (Exhibit D-9) and PW-18, Panna Lal Sonkar (Exhibit D-9).
The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant and awarded punishment on 06.03.2014 as detailed in the opening paragraph of the judgement. Hence, the present appeal by the convict/appellant.
Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the convict/appellant would submit that there are total four eye witnesses in this case namely Tejuram Nishad (PW-2), Heeradas Mandelker (PW-3), Lakhan Lal (PW-4) and Sohag Singh (PW-16). Two of them namely PW-4 and P-16 have turned hostile. The IO could not explain the delay in recording the statement of the witnesses and also the delay in lodging of the FIR. Further, the statement of PW-1, Umed Singh cannot be taken into consideration as the same suffers from many contradictions and omissions. Lastly, he would argue that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there was no motive for the appellant or intention, whatsoever, to commit the crime in question and that there was no dispute or altercation between the deceased and the appellant immediately before the incident. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he would pray that the appeal filed by him may be allowed. In support of his contentions, he would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal & Others, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nande @ Nandkishore, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 196, Sudershan Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 666 and State of H.P. v. Gyan Chand, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 71.
Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/ State would support the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He would further state that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumstspection.
The convict, deceased and most of the prosecution witnesses belong to the same village and thus, they appear to be acquainted with each other as is revealed from their deposition made before the Court. Tijuram (PW-2), Hiradas Mandle (PW-3), Lakhan (PW-4), Govardhan (PW-5), Neelkanth (PW-6), Niranjan (PW-7), Puranlal (PW-8), Rewaram (PW-9), Hiraram (PW-11), Shobharam (PW-12), Banshilal (PW-13), Tukaram (PW-14), Vasudev (PW-15), Sohag Singh (PW-16), Shrawan (PW-19) were sitting in the cargo-space of the vehicle Swaraj Mazda which was being driven by Ramesh (PW-20).
In the examination of the convict under Section 313 CrPC, he has admitted that he was also the part of the marriage procession (Barat) and was travelling in the vehicle alongwith deceased and the other witnesses. There is no dispute with regard to this aspect. The question that would arise for consideration is that whether the convict had thrown the deceased out of the running vehicle with an intention to kill him.
Umend Singh (PW-1) who is the father of the deceased had deposed that he was informed by Hiraram @ Choti that the appellant had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. When he reached the hospital, he saw that the deceased was unconscious and there was bleeding from his nose. Since there was no recovery, he was taken to Raipur. Later on, he was also informed by Hiradas Mandlekar, Tijuram Nishad, Lakhanlal Nishad, Hiraram @ Choti that the appellant had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. He has deposed that the above fact was informed by him to the police but if the police had not written it down in his statement under Section 161 CrPC (Exhibit D-1), then he is unable to state its reason. He had also stated that he had not seen the incident himself.
Tijuram (PW-2) has deposed that he alongwith 50-60 other persons were travelling in the Swaraz Mazda in which the appellant and the deceased were also there. He clearly states that he saw the appellant calling the deceased near him near the Karhibazar, and thereafter, the convict threw the deceased out of the vehicle. He further states that he is not aware as to why the appellant did such thing. He also stated that he was illiterate. The said witness was asked whether the appellant had thrown the deceased with an intention to kill him, the witness has deposed that if the appellant did not had the intention to kill the deceased, he would have thrown the deceased inside of the vehicle only. He also deposed that he had informed the police in his statement made to the police that he had seen the incident.
Heeradas Mandlekar (PW-3) has deposed that he was acquainted with the convict and the deceased. He specifically stated that before reaching Karhi Thana, the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. The deceased was given water to drink but he could not drink. He also stated that he is not aware with the reason why the appellant threw the deceased out of the vehicle. When this witness was asked a question as to whether the convict had thrown the deceased with intention to kill him, this witness has specifically stated that the convict threw the deceased only to kill him. In cross examination, he has stated that the marriage procession (Barat) was going in two vehicles and the speed of Swaraj Mazda was high and it was incorrect to state that the deceased was sitting in the back side of the cargo space. He specifically states that the deceased was sitting in the middle of the cargo space. In the statements given to the police (Exhibit D-4 and D-5) he had informed the police that the convict had thrown the deceased from the side of the cargo space. If this thing was not written by the police, he cannot state the reason for it. When this witness saw the convict throwing the deceased, the legs of the deceased were entangled in the shoulders of the convict.
Lakhanlal (PW-4) is a hostile witness who had deposed that he is not aware as to how the deceased fell from the vehicle. He had seen the deceased after he fell from the vehicle. According to him, Tiju and Hiradas had made hue and cry when the deceased fell. He also states that when the driver of the vehicle applied the brake and as the deceased was sitting on the back side of the cargo space, the deceased fell.
Gowardhan (PW-5) deposed that there was a hue and cry that the deceased had fallen from the vehicle upon which they asked the vehicle to stop. The driver of the Swaraj Mazda sent the deceased to Balodabazar in another vehicle. He specifically stated that he had not seen how the deceased fell from the vehicle. On a question being asked by the prosecution, he denied that the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle with an intention to kill though he had admitted that the deceased had fallen from the running vehicle. He also denied that Tiju and Hiradas had told him that the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle.
Neelkanth (PW-6) deposed that people started making hue and cry that deceased had fallen from the vehicle. He dabbed the vehicle upon which the driver stopped the vehicle. The deceased had sustained internal injuries because of which there was no bleeding. In cross-examination, he states that Bhurwa had informed him that the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. He also states that he had given his statement for the first time when the police had come to their village for investigation. Lastly, he states that he had not seen the deceased falling out of the vehicle.
Niranjan (PW-7) expressed his ignorance as to how the deceased fell from the vehicle. He had denied that because of the pressure of his society, he had given false statement to save the convict. No questions were asked to him in cross-examination.
Puranlal (PW-8) has also made similar statement regarding his ignorance as to how the deceased fell. After falling down, he had poured water on the forehead of the deceased. He denied of making any police staement (Exhibit P-5) that Tiju Nishad and Hiradas had informed him that the accused had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle with an intention to kill. No questions were asked to him in cross-examination.
Rewaram (PW-9) also deposed that when the marriage procession reached near the Karhi Mandi, there was a hue and cry that the deceased had fallen from the vehicle. The vehicle was stopped and after getting off the vehicle, he alongwith others saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and on being asked how he fell off the vehicle, no one said anything. The deceased was sent to the Hospital and on the next day he came to know that the deceased had expired. On being asked by the prosecution, this witness stated that in his police statement, he had not said that Bhurwa and Tijuram had informed him that convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. He further stated that it was incorrect to state that he had informed the police that the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle with an intention to kill. He expressed his ignorance with regard to any animosity between the deceased and the convict. No questions were asked to him in the cross examination.
Hiralal (PW-10) stated that while he was returning from Raipur, he met Mansingh Nishad and Umend Singh Dhurandhar near village Bhainsa when he came to know that when the deceased was going in the marriage procession, someone threw him off the vehicle. The treatment of the deceased was going on at Balodabazar Hospital. His nose was bleeding and was unconscious. The deceased was taken to Raipur in 108 Ambulance. On the same day at about 12 in the night, he came to know that the deceased had died. On the next day, Hiradas had informed him that the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. He also states that Umend had informed him in presence of Rajesh that someone had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that he had given his statement to the police for the first time when the police arrived at his village-Rasauta. In the cross-examination he further stated that his wife is the Sarpanch of the village and for the last 10 years, illegal liquor was being sold in that village but at present, no illegal liquor was being sold in the village. He also expressed his ignorance that whether the convict or his family members were involved in liquor ban but states that the women were involved in liquor ban in the village.
Hiraram (PW-11) had deposed that neither he had seen nor is having any knowledge as to how the deceased fell off the vehicle. He deposed that he had informed the father of the deceased on the mobile phone of the deceased which was lying there, that the deceased had fallen from the vehicle. He denied of having made any statement to the police that he had seen the convict throwing the deceased off the vehicle or that he had informed the father of the deceased on mobile that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle.
Shobharam (PW-12) deposed that he was sitting in the last side of the cargo space and is not aware as to what happened. When the people started making hue and cry that someone had fallen off the vehicle, the vehicle was stopped and after getting off the vehicle, they found the deceased lying on the ground. The deceased was given water and was taken to Karhi Hospital. From there, the deceased was taken to Balodabazar and from there he was taken to Raipur Balaji Hospital and later to the Government Hospital. He is the witness to the inquest (Exhibit P-9).
Banshilal (PW-13) has deposed that Bhuruwa had informed him that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle. Police had taken his statement. He was unaware of the reason as to why the police had not written the name of Bhurwa in his statement (Exhibit D-7). He further stated that it was incorrect that the Baratis were ready to assault the convict and why the police had written the same was beyond his understanding. He further deposed that he was not knowing that there were some talks going on between Tijuram and the family of the convict with regard to marriage between Kamini, the daughter of Tijuram and the convict.
Tukaram (PW-14) deposed that Tiju and Hiradas @ Bhuruwa had informed him that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle who later on died. He had given such statement to the police 10 days after the incident. He specifically stated that it was incorrect to say that Tiju and Hiradas had not informed to him about the incident.
Vasudev (PW-15) deposed that he had not seen the deceased and was the last person to get off the vehicle. When the deceased was being taken to the hospital, at that time, he had seen the deceased.
Sohag Singh (PW-16) deposed that the Baratis made a hue and cry that that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle. The convict was also in the vehicle on whom he became very angry. He deposed that he is an illiterate and had put his thumb impression on his statement given to the police and had also given his photograph. His statement was taken 8-10 days after the incident. He further states he had informed the police while giving his statement that the Baratis had made a hue and cry regarding throwing of the deceased by the convict, but why the same has not been written down by the police is beyond his knowledge. This witness has admitted that he alongwith Rewaram, Neelkanth, Hiralal Sarpanch, Shobhit Nishad, Mansingh Nishad, Santu Nishad had taken a pond on lease for five years on payment of Rs. 1 Lac 25 thousand and that he does not keep the accounts of the said pond.
Shivnath Sahu (PW-17) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-11) on 05.05.2011 after inspecting the spot and marked the place of incident with red ink.
Panna Lal Sonkar (PW-18) is the owner of the vehicle Swaraj Mazda. He deposed that his vehicle was seized vide Exhibit P-12. He specifically stated that police had not enquired anything from him regarding the case and is stating for the first time in the Court.
Shrawan (PW-19) had deposed that deceased fell off the vehicle when the driver of vehicle applied the brake as the deceased was sitting in the rear side of the cargo space on a wooden plank. This witness has denied that the police had made enquiries from him. He also denied that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle.
Ramesh (PW-20) is a seizure witness (Exhibit P-13). After deposing that nothing was seized from the appellant before him, he was declared hostile. In his deposition, he had stated that near Karhi Chowk, when the Baratis dabbed the cargo space and shouted, the vehicle stopped. He deposed that he is not aware how the deceased fell out of the vehicle. He did not support the prosecution story.
L.R.Giri (PW-21) who is the Assistant Sub Inspector had seized the vehicle Tata Swaraj Mazda 407 bearing registration No. CJ-04-J-8890 (PW-12) which was damaged from the driver side. The registration certificate, fitness, insurance, permit and the keys of the said vehicle were seized vide Exhibit P-12. He has also recorded the statement of Pannalal (PW-18).
Head Contable Niluram Diwan (PW-22) had deposed that after giving notice (Exhibit P-8) witnesses were called for conducting the inquest and the inquest report (Exhibit P-9) was prepared. The dead body was sent alongwith Constable Balraj Singh for postmortem alongwith application (Exhibit P-14) for which a duty certificate (Exhibit P-15) was issued.
In the deposition of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-23) he has described about the injuries sustained by the deceased as detailed in paragraph 5 above, and that the death was caused due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of head injury and their complications. The duration of death was estimated to be within 24 hours from the time of postmortem and the duration of injuries were estimated to be within 24 hours prior to death. However, there is no mention with regard to the nature of the death whether it was homicidal or accidental.
Mahendra Kumar (PW-24) is the mechanic who inspected the vehicle Swaraj Mazda from which the convict had thrown the deceased. After inspecting, the witness found that the clutch, steering, brake etc. were proper and gave its report which is Exhibit P-17.
Bhuneshwar (PW-25) has deposed that he is an illiterate and was sitting in the front side of the vehicle. He had not seen how the deceased fell off the vehicle nor had seen anyone throwing him out of the vehicle. He specifically denied that Hiradas had informed him that the convict had thrown the deceased out of the vehicle. However, in the cross-examination, he stated that police had taken his statement but he had not stated anything to the police regarding the incident.
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal (PW-26) had deposed that on 24.02.2011, he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer. On the said date, the deceased was brought in a dead condition at 10:49 p.m. in Sanjivani Express and an information (Exhibit P-18) in this regard was given by the Hospital to the Mahaudapara Police Station.
B.R.Mandavi (PW-27) who is the IO has deposed that on the intimation (Exhibit P-18), Merg No. 0/2011 (Exhibit P-19) was registered and on the basis of the said Merg intimation, another Merg Intimation being Merg No. 127/2011 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered by the Police Station, Balodabazar and thereafter the FIR (Exhibit P-21) was registered. The IO had prepared the spot map (Exhibit P-1). He had recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and had also seized one Full-pant, one T-shirts with full sleeves (Exhibit P-13), in presence of the witnesses. He has deposed that he had recorded their statements exactly as informed by the witnesses. He had arrested the accused vide Exhibit P-22 and the intimation regarding the same was also given to his father vide Exhibit P-23.
From perusal of the statements made by the witnesses and the deposition made before the Court, it is apparent that Tijuram (PW-2), Hiradas (PW-3) had deposed that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle with an intention to kill. Immediately after the incident, the witnesses sitting in the vehicle namely Banshilal (PW-13), Tukaram (PW-14) were informed by Tiju (PW-2) and Bhurwa (PW-3) that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle. According to the witness Sohag Singh (PW-16), the Baratis had also raised a hue and cry that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle Panna Lal Sonkar (PW-18) also came to know from the driver Ramesh (PW-20) immediately after the incident that the convict had thrown one person off the vehicle. Though Dr. Shiv Narayan Manjhi (PW-23) who conducted the postmortem has not stated anything with regard to the nature of the death as to whether it was accidental or homicidal, but has deposed that if any persons falls from a height, the injuries as stated in the report can be sustained.
So far as the delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, it is evident from the records that there were two merg intimations and the FIR was recorded on the basis of those merg intimations. Hence, some delay may have occassioned which is justifiable because the first merg intimation was recorded by the Police Station, Maudahapara, District Raipur, and the second merg intimation was recorded by the Police Station, Balodabazar.
In the present case, there is no evidence to the effect that because of sudden braking or bouncing of the vehicle, the deceased fell off the vehicle, on the contrary, there is evidence in the form of depositions of the witnesses that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle because of which the deceased sustained injuries on his head and later died.
So far as the omissions and contradictions in the statement made to the police and the deposition before the Court by the witnesses are concerned, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. If the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and the trial court upon appreciation of evidence forms opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the situation. which has to be taken note of, and we do not see any justification to pass a contra note, as well, on perusal of the evidence on record.
The prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that the convict had thrown the deceased off the vehicle with an intention to kill him and as such, is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no interference of this Court is called for. The trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC by means of the impugned order. The appeal has no merit, it is accordingly dismissed.
From perusal of the records, it appears that the appellant was on bail throughout the trial and after his conviction, he was taken into custody. However, after preferring the instant appeal, he was released on bail vide order dated 22.07.2014 passed by this Court. As the appeal of the convict/appellant stands dismissed, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. He is directed to surrender forthwith, failing which he shall be taken into custody to serve out remaining period of sentence in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the trial Court.
Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.