AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.12.2006 passed by Special Judge, Shahdol in Special Case No.9/2006, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life with fine of Rs.500/- each.
In brief the prosecution case is that on 19.11.2005 at about 7.00 pm Santosh/complainant alongwith Pritam both were present at the house of Santosh. They heard the voice towards road side. When they came out, Ramvati informed them that two persons have beaten Nanshah and took him towards pond, therefore, complainant-Santosh and Pritam went towards pond. They saw the incident. Appellants were dragging Nanshah and assaulted him. Nanshah self unconscious, he sustained injuries over the head and other parts of body. They informed the police. Police lodged FIR under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ ST Act against the appellants. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court.
The case was committed to the learned trial court, the trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellants under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ ST Act . Appellants abjured their guilt. The trial Court found, the appellants' guilty under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ ST Act for committing murder of Nanshah. The trial Court relied on the testimony of Ramvati (PW4), Santosh (PW1), Pritam (PW5) and Shayamwati (PW7). Other witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution case. Ocular testimony was also corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. D.K. Kori (PW9). Hence, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment.
This appeal has been filed on the grounds that the appellants are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated by Pritam and Santosh due to previous enmity. The prosecution evidence is contradictory and so many lacunae in the prosecution case have been ignored by the trial Court. All the interested witnesses have been examined by the police, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside and the accused persons be acquitted from the charges.
There are two eye witnesses Santosh (PW1) and Pritam (PW5). At the time of incident, they were present nearby the spot of occurrence at the house of Santosh. At about 7:00 p.m., they both have heard the noise from outside. When they came out, Ramvati (PW4) informed that two persons are beating Nanshah. Both of them ran away towards pond to rescue Nanshah, they saw that the appellants were assaulting and dragging him in a naked condition. Santosh (PW1) and Pritam (PW5) tried to rescue him, but the appellants threatened them that they will kill Nanshah as he was flirting with their sister.
After the incident, Nanshah was almost unconscious and in a blood soaked condition. The appellants fled away from the
spot. Thereafter, Pritam (PW5) stayed there and Santosh (PW1) alone went towards his village. He came back with other persons. They found that Nanshah died on the spot. Thereafter FIR was lodged by Santosh (PW1) as Exh.P1. We find that there is prompt FIR at Police Station, Bijuri, district Anooppur.
The FIR was lodged by named against the appellants.
Sonshah (PW2), Santosh Kumar S/o Karan Shah (PW3), Pritam (PW5) and Premlal (PW6) saw injuries on the body of the deceased on the spot just after the incident. They have stated that Nanshah sustained number of injuries. He sustained head injury also and died on the spot.
Dr. D.K. Kori (PW9) conducted postmortem of dead body and found following injuries:-
"(a) A lacerated wound over right frontal region of skull size 5cmx2cmxbone deep 5cm.
(b) A lacerated wound on mid frontal region of skull just in mid line size 3x1½ cm x bone deep.
(c) An abrasion on scalp left side at the junction of forehead and frontal part of skull 3 c.m. left to mid line
(d) A lacerated wound on middlest right leg size 1cm x ½ cm x muscle deep
(e) A lacerated wound on left leg in middle region size 2½ x 1cm x bone deep
(f) An abrasion on left leg upper part size 7 cm x 1cm
(g) Multiple abrasions on middle and lower portion of front aspect of left knee size size ½ x ½ cm to ¾ x ¾ cm
(h) An abrasion size 6 x 3 cm on mid portion of right shoulder
(i) An abrasion size 5 x 2 cm, one and half cm below from top of left shoulder joint.
(j) An extensive abrasion on right side of chest, extended from 7 th rib area upto last rib floating rib size 15x15 cm
(k) An abrasion size 12x8 cm left lower coastal region of chest extended from 7 th to 11 rib area
(l) An abrasion size 8 x 2 cm extended from left check upto 1 cm above from chin
(m) An abrasion below right chine size 4 x 2 cm
(n) An abrasion on left lumber region of abdomen size 8 x 3 cm
(o) An abrasion extended from right mid scapula region upto 10 th rib area size 28 x 13 cm
(p) An abrasion on back vertebral column of T7-T8 size 6 x 2 cm one cm right to mid line.
(q) An abrasion on vertebral column of L2-L3 middle part size 4 x 1½ cm
(r) An abrasion on back of throat left side lower part in part mid clavicular line size 9 x 6 cm
(s) An abrasion size 11 x 2 cm extended from right iliac crest upto right buttock upper portion
(t) Multiple abrasions of varying size and shape 13 numbers extended from dorsal aspect of left elbow upto left forearm lower portion.
(u) A lacerated wound on left forearm lower third portion size 2 x 1 cm muscle deep
(v) A contusion on left upper arm dorsal aspect middle and lower portion size 10 x 3 cm.
(w) An abrasion on left mid scapula region in part mid clavicular line size 8 x 4 cm.
(x) An abrasion size 10 x 2 cm extended from left mid injured region upto left buttock upper and outer part.
All injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and antemortem in nature. After internal examination of skull Doctor found hematoma over frontal bone with fracture, which is about 8 cm long and there is laceration in membranes .
Doctor clearly opined that death was caused due to head injuries resulting into coma and such injuries are sufficient to cause death of the deceased. All injuries were caused within 6 to 24 hours from medical examination.
We find no omission or contradiction in postmortem report of the deceased. The medical evidence and ocular evidence are almost similar in nature. Therefore, we find that the prosecution case is also supported by medical evidence.
Number of injuries and nature of injuries indicate that the appellants have enmity with the deceased. Therefore, they caused number of injuries to the deceased. Even though, the deceased was unconscious, nonetheless the appellants continued to assault and dragg him. They caused the aforesaid injuries by sticks.
As per the Investigating Officer, Arun Kumar Soni (PW14) on 20 th November, 2005, prepared Punchnama (Exh.P/3) and seized some articles from the spot of the incident on the same day. He recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested appellants. He also recorded their memorandum under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as Exh. P/12 and P/19. As per their memorandum, the clothes of the deceased and aforesaid sticks which were used by the appellants were seized by him vide seizure memo Exh. P/10 and P/11 and seized articles were sent for chemical examination. FSL report was exhibited as Exh.P/22. After chemical examination of the articles, the blood stains were found on the sticks as well as wooden pieces. It is also specified in the FSL report that the human blood was present on the seized sticks and wooden pieces. This evidence also connect the appellants with the offence.
We find there is no enmity amongst the appellants, witnesses and Investigating Officer. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that after escaping the real culprit they have falsely implicated the appellants in the present case.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no sharp cutting weapon or deadly weapon were used by the appellants, therefore, their case comes under the purview of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.
We are not agreed with the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants because the conduct of the appellants and number and nature of injuries indicate that the appellants intentionally caused such injuries to the deceased. Further, they were threatening the deceased and the witnesses [Santosh (PW1) and Pritam (PW5)] they killed deceased because he was flirting with their sister and at the time of incidence, the deceased was empty handed. At the beginning of the incident, the appellants started dragging the deceased to nearby pond where no one was present to help him. In these circumstances, their intention was only to kill the deceased.
In our opinion, the case of the appellants apparently comes under the purview of Section 302 of IPC. We find that the trial Court after appreciating the entire prosecution evidence has rightly held that the appellants are guilty of committing murder of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find that t here is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court. The findings are based on the evidence on record. Hence, there is no need to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance and necessary action.
If the appellants are on bail, they will immediately surrender before the trial Court.