Munna @ Imrat S/o Phool Singh Gond vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.2.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, in Session Trial No.127/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections

449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.300/- and RI for life with fine of Rs.500/-

respectively with default stipulations.

In brief the prosecution case is that on 2.6.2006 at about 02.30 am when Gokul Gond was sleeping at his premises due to old enmity, the

appellant caused his death by inflicting axe blows. The incident was reported by Ramesh the elder brother of the deceased at police station

Suatala, Tehsil Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. Police registered a case under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and after due investigation filed a

charge sheet against the appellant.

After committal of the case, the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC against the appellant. The appellant

abjured guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated by the police due to previous enmity with the complainant party. After considering the

prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of IPC and

sentenced him as mentioned above.

The findings and sentence have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds that the learned trial Court has wrongly relied on the

prosecution evidence. The incident occurred in dark night and there was no source of light and it was not possible for any person to identify the

culprit. The findings of the learned trial Court are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence, hence deserve to be set aside.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Learned Govt. Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and contended that the learned trial Court has properly and rightly

held the appellant guilty for committing the aforesaid offences.

The point for consideration is that ""whether the appellant is entitle for acquittal from the charges leveled against him ?

The prosecution examined eye witnesses Ramesh Gond (PW3) and Baijnath (PW4), who were sleeping nearby the deceased. Ramesh Gond

(PW3) is the brother of deceased and Baijnath (PW4) is the son of deceased. The incident took place at about 2.30 am and their presence on the

spot is found reliable. They have clearly stated that they witnessed the incident. The appellant inflicted blows of axe over the neck of the deceased.

Due to the axe blows, deceased Gokul fell over his son Baijnath. Both the witnesses saw the appellant on the spot wielding an axe in hand.

Thereafter the appellant ran away from the spot leaving the axe on the spot.

We find no material contradiction and omission in the testimony of the aforesaid eye witnesses. Even though they are close relatives of the

deceased, but their evidence is duly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. With regard to intention of the appellant, the testimony of

Maltibai (PW6) is important. She has stated that prior to commission of the aforesaid offence, the appellant came to the premises of her house

(Dehlan) and took an axe. She tried to stop him, but he did not stop. After some time Ramesh (PW1) came to her house and informed her about

the incident. Testimony of Sabbi Bai (PW7) is also corroborated by her husband Bhagchand Thakur (PW9).

Sabbi Bai (PW7) heard the voice of Baijnath (the son of deceased) who was shouting that his father is killed by the appellant. By means of the

torch light she saw the dead body of Gokul.

Tejpal Thakur (PW8) has stated that the appellant was running away from the spot. Thereafter he also saw the dead body of the deceased

whose neck was slit open.

The aforesaid testimonies are relevant under Sections 6 and 8 of the Evidence Act. With regard to the prior conduct and intention of the

appellant, it is also important to note that FIR has been lodged promptly against the appellant. Autopsy of the deceased was conducted just after

lodging the FIR. Dr. T.C. Kalvani (PW12) found the following injuries on the body of deceased :-

(i) A lacerated wound over the neck about 6.5''''x5.5'''' deep up to cervical vertebra.

(ii) A lacerated wound left side of chest about 4x3x3 cm.

Due to aforesaid injuries, thyroid, cartilage, trachea, jugular vein, esophagus were divided into two parts. As per Dr. Bhagchand Thakur

(PW9) injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. There is slight contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. As per the

eye witnesses, injuries were caused by sharp object i.e. axe. We rely on the ocular evidence because Doctor also found thyroid, cartilage, trachea,

jugular vein, esophagus were divided into two parts due to forceful blows by some sharp cutting object. The opinion of the medical officer could

be wrong. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. The deceased died on the spot. Such type of injuries caused by a sharp

object by an axe. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the eye witnesses.

The incriminating article axe was recovered by K.K. Tiwari (PW14) from the spot and sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. In the

FSL report (Ex.P17) human blood was found on the axe, which also establish that appellant by this sharp cutting object caused the injuries to the

deceased.

As per Tulsiram (PW2) the deceased kept Ramvati Bai with him who died due to illness. She was sister of the deceased. Hence, the appellant

was annoyed with the deceased.

Ramesh (PW3), Baijnath (PW7), Sabbi Bai (PW7) and her husband Baghchand Thakur (PW9) established that the appellant had enmity with

the deceased and he threatened the deceased that he will see the deceased and thereafter killed him.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we come to the conclusion that the appellant has intentionally caused the fatal injuries on the vital organs

of the deceased with premeditation to cause his death. The case comes under the purview of Section 302 of IPC. Hence, the appellant has rightly

been convicted by the learned trial Court under Sections 302 of IPC. The present appeal against the conviction of the appellant, deserves to be

dismissed. Hence, is dismissed.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance alongwith the record immediately.