AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Saksena, J.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment passed on 31-12-1994 in Sessions Trial No. 938/92 by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mudwara (Katni) convicting him for the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The prosecution case is that on 30-3-92 at about 11.00 p.m., complainant Ramlal and Durga Barman were going to market after closing their betel shop, when they reached near the bungalow of Dr. Pramod Singh, three accused persons, viz., Narendra Singh @ Narayan Singh, Bablu Isai and Munna Sengar came there from behind and without saying anything threw a bomb which hit on the back side of the neck of Durga Barman. It caused a loud noise and by its sparks his shirt and baniyan got burnt and by the injuries of pellets he fell down and got unconscious. Ramlal leaving the injured at the spot, went to his house and informed his parents and thereafter went to lodge report, Ex. P-7 at Police Station, Katni. Injured was sent for medical examination and the treatment to Government Hospital, Katni. P.W. 12 Dr. Pramod Singh examined him and found him dead.
Post-mortem of the dead body was performed by P.W. 5 Dr. T.N. Khare, who, vide his post-mortem report, Ex. P-5, found the following injuries :--
(1) Haemotoma 6" x 6" occipital region of skull, extending to upper part of neck posteriorly.
(2) Bruise 3" x 3" on left shoulder.
(3) Bruise 2" x 2" on back of neck.
(4) Bruise 1-1/2" x 1/4" oblique on Rt. side of neck extending to angle of mandible.
(5) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on Lt. leg.
On internal examination, fracture of occipital bone in vertical direction was found. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock due to head injury. Doctor also found hair on the back side of his head burnt and some yellow powder present there. Doctor cut his hair and sealed the same.
During investigation, Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 G.K. Tiwari performed the inquest, prepared the spot map and vide seizure memo, Ex. P-3, seized the residue of exploded bomb with some glass pieces and sent them for examination by Forensic expert.
Appellant Narendra was also sent for medical examination on the same night. He was examined by P.W. 12 Dr. Pramod Singh, who found crushed injuries on his left hand. Some fingers of his hand were absent and the skin and tendons were ruptured. His medical report is Ex. P-16.
After requisite investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was put up for trial against three accused persons. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated and that on the same night his hand was crushed under a jeep, hence, he was sent to hospital by the police.
Prosecution case mainly rested on the evidence of P.W. 7 Ramlal, the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. Learned Trial Court relying upon his evidence and finding it corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4 Shankar Barman, the brother of the deceased and by the medical evidence of Dr. T.N. Khare held the appellant guilty and convicted him accordingly. Other accused were however acquitted.
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the conviction of the appellant mainly on the ground that the evidence of alleged sole eye-witness Ramlal is not reliable. His testimony is suffering with material omissions and contradictions and that from the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. T.N. Khare, it is not proved that the injured had suffered injuries by the explosion of a bomb. He further submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly held that the appellant had suffered injury in his hand while throwing the bomb at the deceased. He submitted that the glass pieces and remnants of the alleged bomb seized from the spot were sent for examination to FSL but its report was not filed. He further submitted that the place of occurrence was a public place near the bungalows of various Government Officers, but, no independent witness was produced. The evidence of P.W. 7 Ramlal was unnatural and unreliable.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/State contended that the evidence of Ramlal is wholly reliable, it is corroborated by P.W. 4 Shankar Barman to whom he had narrated the story soon after the occurrence and the medical evidence of Dr. Khare. He contended that the appellant had also suffered injuries in his hand by explosion of the bomb while throwing at the deceased.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perusing the evidence and material on the record, we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the evidence of sole eye-witness P.W. 7 Ramlal is not reliable.
The entire case revolves around and rests on the testimony of Ramlal. It is now well established that the conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye-witness provided the Court finds from the scrutiny of his evidence that he is a reliable witness. It is in the light of this well settled principle that we shall examine the testimony of P.W. 7 Ramlal. On perusal of the evidence of Ramlal, it is found that he had improved upon his earliest version given by him in the first information report, Ex. P-7. In the first information report, this witness has not specifically mentioned that it was the appellant Narendra who threw the bomb on the deceased. On the contrary, he mentioned that all the three accused came from behind and threw bomb, while in his statement before the Court, he stated that all the three accused persons came and abused and thereafter appellant took out the bomb and threw at the deceased. The fact that appellant threw the bomb at the deceased was not mentioned in the first information report. This witness stated that he went to the house of the deceased and informed his parents whereupon his parents called Tejpal Bhatiya who saw that there was no injury on the body of the deceased. Thereafter, they took the deceased to his house and washed his hands and face and when he did not regain consciousness, took him to Government Hospital, Katni. At the hospital, doctor informed the police, then, police had taken him to Police Station and had detained him for 2 days. These facts do not find place in the first information report. In Para 9 of his cross-examination, Ramlal said that he had lodged the report next day evening at about 3- 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, police had released him, whereas P.W. 14 K.R. Ahirwar, Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that Ramlal had lodged the report on 31-3-92 at 2.00 o''clock.
According to this witness, the injury to deceased was caused by the explosion of the bomb, but, from the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. T.N. Khare, who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, it appears that the deceased had suffered injuries which were haemotoma, contusions and abrasions only. Doctor has not opined that the aforesaid injuries were caused by any fire arm or explosive substance. No pellets or glass pieces were found in the injuries though Dr. Khare said that the hair of the back side of the head of the deceased were found burnt and some yellow powder was also found there, yet, no expert report of forensic science laboratory was produced to show that the hair were burnt due to explosion of any explosive substance.
Though doctor has deposed that the back side of the shirt of deceased was torn, yet, there was no smell of burning or gun powder and the skin of the deceased was also not found burnt. He stated that there may be several reasons for burning of the hair of the head. He further stated that had the bomb exploded by impacting on any part of the body, there should have been injuries causing charring and the rupture of the skin and tearing of muscle and pieces of glass or splinters ought to have been found in the injury. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 7 Ramlal does not find corroboration from the evidence of Dr. T.N. Khare.
Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of Ramlal is corroborated from P.W. 4 Shankar Barman to whom he had informed about the occurrence soon after the incident. This witness has stated that Ramlal had informed him that there had been a quarrel near the doctor''s bungalow wherein a bomb was exploded as a result of which Durga had fallen down. He stated that his brother had a quarrel with Narendra, Bablu and Munna and it was Narendra, who had taken out a bomb and tried to throw it at Ramlal, when Durga tried to save Ramlal, in that course appellant and Durga fell down and the bomb exploded causing injuries to appellant Narendra as well as to the deceased. The story given by this witness is altogether different than that given by P.W. 7 Ramlal. Ramlal himself did not say that Narendra and Durga had scuffle and they had fallen down. Ramlal had not even said that appellant had suffered any injury in the incident by the bomb.
Thus, the evidence of P.W. 4 Shankar Barman is not worthy of reliance and does not furnish corroboration to the evidence of Ramlal.
So far as the injuries to appellant Narendra is concerned, doctor has not found any charring or burning mark on them. From the medical examination report, Ex. P-16 of appellant Narendra, it appears that he had given history about his injury that it had been caused by crushing by the jeep tyre. In this regard, it is also significant to note that the version given by the alleged eye-witness Ramlal is that the bomb was thrown by the appellant at the deceased. Under these circumstances, it was improbable and unnatural that the appellant could have suffered injury in his hand by the bomb.
On meticulous analysis of the evidence of P.W. 7 Ramlal, the solitary eye-witness of the occurrence, we are of the opinion that it would be unsafe to rely upon his testimony to uphold the conviction of the appellant. There is no other evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. He is in jail since 10-4-92. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.