Naresh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Sanjay Yadav, J

This appeal received from the Central Jail, Gwalior is directed against the judgment dated 19/12/2008 passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial

No. 88/2007 recording conviction against the appellant on a charge for causing murder of his wife and sentencing him for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

and the default sentence of four months R.I.

[2] The prosecution was set in motion when complainant Hariom (PW/3), brother of deceased, lodged a complaint with PS Jhansi Road on 25/09/2006

at 9:50AM that while visiting deceased house, where he goes to deliver milk everyday, at 9:30AM he heard the cries of her sister and saw her being

beaten with the club stick (mogri) by the accused; thereafter, he saw the accused pulling her sister by hair who fell down on floor when the accused

sat on her chest and gave knife blow to her neck. On hearing his cries and that of her sister, the tenants and persons living in the neighbourhood came

rushing, with whose help he sent his sister to JAH (Jaya Arogya Hospital) and went to report to the police station. On report, offence under Section

307 IPC was registered vide crime No. 358/2006. The police went to hospital at 11AM where they found that Mamta had died. Inquest was prepared

vide Ex-P/8. The body of Mamta was sent for postmortem, at 12 Noon. Dr. J.N. Soni (PW/8) performed the autopsy whereon vide report Ex-P/13

following injuries were found on the body:-

“1. Lacerated wound 1 cm - right to mid line posterior in. aspect of vertex anteroposteriorly 7 cm long x 0.5 cm scalp deep.

Lacerated wound 3 cm left to external occipital protuberance 5 cm x 0. 5 cm scalp deep, obliquely vertical.

Cut wound on left side of neck 3 cm below the angle of mandible 7cm long (3cm left to mid line) with tailing on left side fore 2cm. 3cm deep,

oesophagus blood vessels, trachea and nerves are cut in the course of wound.â€​

[3] The Doctor (PW/8) opined that the injuries were fresh and sufficient to cause death individually as well as by cumulative effect, in ordinary course

of nature; and that, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage or a result of multiple injuries. That injury Nos. 1 & 2 caused by hard and blunt object

and injury No. 3 caused by sharp cutting object. The death was homicidal in nature. Meanwhile, besides collecting and seizing blood stained shirt,

broken bangles, blood stained piece of paper, the club and knife used for commission of offence and sending them for scientific analysis to the

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, preparation of spot map by the investigation officer and by the mobile FSL unit; the accused was arrested on

the same day i.e. 25/09/2006. The scientific analysis report was received on 17/11/2006 (Ex-P/12). The prosecution after completing necessary

investigation filed the charge sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction whereon the charge of causing murder of Mamta was framed against

the accused.

[4] The accused abjured his guilt and besides pleading innocence submitted that he was not present at the scene of crime and was away from home.

[5] The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Of these Hariom (PW/3) was examined as eye witness. Whereas, Arvind (PW/5) corroborated with

Hariom (PW/3). Forensic expert, Shri Akhilesh Bhargava was examined as PW/6 who established that the articles, viz, pieces of bangles, blood

stained piece of paper, the club and shirt of the accused had human blood stains and the pieces of bangle and the shirt and club were having blood

group 'A'.

[6] The trial Court on the basis of material evidence on record held the appellant guilty of charges of having murdered Mamta.

[7] Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contradicts the findings by the trial Court. It is urged that the trial Court grossly erred in recording the

finding of guilt by glossing over the fact that the clothes of the complainant (PW/3) were not sent for scientific analysis to prove that he was present at

the place of crime. It is urged that even the spot map was not signed by the complainant who claimed himself to be an eye witness which cast heavy

doubt on the prosecution story. It is urged that though the complainant in his complaint has stated of having gone to delivery milk but there is no

mention of this fact in spot map (Ex-P/8) which creates a doubt as to presence of Hariom (PW/3) at the scene of crime. It is urged that even the

auto-rickshaw driver was not examined that the body of Mamta was carried by the complainant. These aspects, it is urged, create doubt over the

prosecution story.

[8] The State on its turn contradicts the stand. It is urged that there being cogent material evidence on record, the trial Court rightly held the appellant

guilty.

[9] Considered rival submissions and perused the record.

[10] Before dwelling on the rival contentions, it is observed from the record that by order dated 23/07/2007, taking note of the report by the

Psychiatrist from the Jail that, the accused has developed mental ailment, the trial Court while staying trial, sent the accused for treatment with a

direction to furnish the report within three months. The accused was accordingly admitted to Gwalior Mansik Arogya Shala and was kept under

observation till 18/06/2008. That Dr. Kuldeep Singh, Psychiatrist/ Superintendent, Gwalior Mansik Arogya Shala submitted the observation report (Ex-

C/1) that, currently, the accused is maintaining well with the medicines. That he is able to defend himself in Court of law. That he is fit for discharge

(from Arogya Shala). Dr. Kuldeep Singh was examined on 06/08/2008 as Court witness No. 1 where he affirmed the observation report. Whereon by

order dated 06/08/2008, the trial recommenced and completed after recording the evidence. The order of recommencement of trial was not

questioned. No cogent material evidence is commended at that after recommencement of the trial, the accused suffered further mental ailment. This

takes care of the submission made behalf of the appellant that he was of unsound mind during trial, therefore, the entire trial got vitiated. The

submissions are taken note of and rejected at the outset in view of given facts.

[11] Coming to the contention raised against the possibility of the eye witness being present at the scene of crime, suffice it to say that non mentioning

of the milk pot in the spot map and non signing of the spot map by the eye witness which is admitted by the investigating officer, Shri K.N. Tripathi

(PW/7) is of no consequence. Evidently, the crime is commissioned at 9:30AM, the eye witness PW/3 takes the injured victim to the hospital and goes

to lodge report at 9:50AM, whereon an offence under Section 307 IPC is registered. The PW/3 comes back to hospital where he finds the victim is

declared dead and her body was given to PW/2 father of the deceased. Inquest report is prepared in presence of the complainant Hariom (PW/3).

The crime detail form which includes the spot map (Ex-P/8) is prepared at 10:10 AM, thus there was no possibility of the complainant to be physically

present at the spot at the time of preparing the map because he was at the hospital. Furthermore, Hariom (PW/3), the complainant explains in his

cross examination in paragraph 5 of his testimony that he kept the milk container outside the house and did not inform about the same to the Police. It

is quite natural in the happenings of the event of having forgotten to inform the police about milk container. It cannot be termed as an unusual act.

Thus, there being a cogent explanation available on record as to the circumstance under which the signature of the eye witness was not taken on the

spot map and why the spot map did not find mention about the milk container. Further, the contention that, the complainant's shirt must have got the

blood ought to have been sent to forensic science laboratory and the investigating agency having failed to do so creates doubt about the presence of

the complainant at the scene of crime. These contentions are also of no consequences, as there are other cogent material evidence on record such as

blood stained broken bangle pieces, piece of blood stained paper and blood stained shirt of the accused who was arrested on very same day. And as

per serologist all these articles were having blood stains of group 'A'. Furthermore, the evidence of Arvind (PW-5) who was present at place where

the crime was committed, having seen the complainant of shrieking and having also heard the cries of Mamta, the deceased. The presence of the

complainant eye witness cannot be doubted.

[12] Furthermore, the ocular evidence of the complainant is corroborated with the medical evidence as well as the report from the Regional Forensic

Science Laboratory as would cast any doubt as to authenticity of the complainant present and witnessing the crime.

[13] When the entire evidence on record are cumulatively taken into consideration, we perceive no discrepancy in the prosecution in establishing the

charge against the appellant of causing murder of his wife Mamta. The trial Court also did not falter in meticulously analysing the evidence and

recording the conviction.

[14] Having thus considered, we decline to cause any interference. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed.

[15] Before parting with the matter in view of the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep (CW-1) that the accused is required to be regularly medicated, we direct

the Jail Authorities to abide by the instructions given by the psychiatrist and furnish the report in every six months to the Court as to mental status of

the Appellant. In case if the appellant's mental health deteriorates, the Jail Authorities would be under obligation to get him treated in the hospital.

Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Jail authorities who shall in turn inform the appellant about the result of this appeal.