Praful vs State of Madhya Pradesh

M.C. Garg, J.—By this judgment, we shall dispose of the afore mentioned Criminal Appeals which have been preferred by the assailants, who are assailing the judgment of conviction passed against them u/s 302 /34 of IPC as well as u/s 397 /34 of IPC. In the aforesaid case, in Sessions Trial No. 334/2003 dated 6.12.2004 whereby, while convicting the appellants as such, they have been directed to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence u/s 302 /34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, additional sentence of SI for three months was awarded. So far as the appellant Ravindra Solanki is concerned, in addition to his conviction u/s 302 /34 of IPC, he has also been convicted u/s 394 of IPC and has been directed to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. So far as Praful Patil is concerned, while sentencing him to undergo RI for life u/s 302 /34 besides payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-, for the offence u/s 397 of IPC, he has also been convicted. He has been directed to undergo RI for 7 years besides payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-. He has also been convicted for the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act and for the same, he has been directed to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.

In short, the case of the prosecution is as follows:-

However, there is no defence evidence. In their statement u/s 313 of Cr. P.C., they have denied the allegations which came in the trial and have pleaded innocence. As far as Ravindra is concerned, he has also stated that on the date of incident, he had gone to purchase grains from the Mandi but because of stampede, he was falsely implicated.

The case has been initiated on the basis of the FIR which has been registered in this case vide Ex. P-1 at the instance of Rajkumar proprietor of M/s. Dharamdas Mehboobmool, Nai Anaj Mandi. The FIR was registered on 27.6.2003 at about 18.20 in Police Station Ravji Bazar.

In his statement, Rajkumar stated as under:-

Thus, one of the persons, who participated in the crime was arrested at the spot is Ravindra, as per the statement made by PW-9 Mahendra, who has deposed as under:-

In his cross examination, no suggestion has been given that he was not appreciated at the aforesaid time and place as deposed by Mahendra.

Rajkumar PW-1, in his statement has reiterated lodging of the FIR, preparation of Panchayatnama regarding the death of the deceased in this case in his presence.

In his further statement he has also corroborated the statement of PW-9 Mahendra who had arrested one of the person involved in the crime whose name has been later on found as Ravindra Solanki. The number of Car, in which the assailants were trying to fly, has also been reiterated by Mahendra. Statement of PW-1 also reveals that Khemchand hurt with knife in the aforesaid incident, is no more. Statement of PW-1 has been supported by PW-2 Harikishan to the extent of the death of Khemchand. Same is the position of Rajesh. All these witnesses have also stated that Khemchand was hurt. He had withdrawn money from the bank and which was the money which was looted by the assailants. PW-16 Ramdas was posted as Head Constable at Thana Rawji Bazar on 27.6.2003. On the basis of the information received by him from MY Hospital about Khemchand, he recorded Merg No. 16/2003 vide Ex. P-15 and then he informed the SHO. He also took into possession the bundle of clothes along with sample seal which he deposited in the Malkhana. Dr. PS Thakur is the person who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Khemchand. According to his opinion, Khemchand was having the following injuries:-

As per his opinion, the death of the deceased Khemchand occurred on account of excessive flowing of blood from the injuries caused on his chest. The injuries were homicidal and were sufficient to cause death. The opinion given by him is reproduced here as under:-

The clothes of the deceased and the knife which were recovered from Praful Patil after he was arrested in this case were sent for examination to FSL. As per the FSL report, it has been found that knife which was so recovered, had human blood. The FSL report is Ex. P-24, which shows that knife recovered from Praful Patil contained human blood and reads as under:-

Learned trial Judge has considered the evidence which has come on record. In the absence of any defence evidence led on behalf of the respondents, considering the recovery of the knife at the instance of Praful Patil and arrest of Ravindra at the spot and his identification by the witnesses who apprehended him in the Court, as well as the postmortem report which opined that the injuries were homicidal and were sufficient to cause death of the deceased, held, that it was the case of homicidal death amounting to murder. As regards the allegations which have been made against the appellants, the Trial Court relied upon the statement of Rajkumar who is the complainant. However, reliance has been placed on PW-14 Mahendra, Nemichand PW-4 and Mahendra PW-9, who apprehended Ravindra. PW-12, Pushpendra has also deposed about the apprehension of Ravindra at the relevant time. Even though, the witnesses of discovery about knife recovery from Praful Patil have not supported the case of the prosecution but recovery of knife coupled with FSL report has been taken as one of the circumstance by the Trial Court. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment are relevant which are reproduced here as under for the sake of reference:-

Arms have been used for the purpose of looting Khemchand. Knife has been recovered from the possession of Praful Patil and therefore, he has been rightly convicted u/s 397 /34 of IPC as well as in the Arms Act besides his conviction u/s 302 /34 of IPC. As far as Ravindra is concerned, he has not used the knife but he was arrested from the spot after the incident, he is also guilty of section 302 of IPC by virtue of section 34 and also u/s 394 of IPC.

Having gone through the judgment and the record, we are satisfied that the judgment of the Trial Court in convicting the appellants as stated above, does not suffer from any infirmity. We also find no infirmity in the sentence awarded to the appellants. Accordingly, the judgment is upheld and the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.