Rajaram @ Rajju vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the accused against the judgment dated 21.01.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial

No.330/2008, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation.

In brief the prosecution case is that, the deceased Bairagi Baba was living at Pantnagar Vaidanti Temple at Sagar. On 09.05.2008, at about 6

a.m. the appellant came there and quarreled with the Baba to provide him ''ganja-chilam'' (a narcotic drug). Baba refused to give it. Then appellant

threatened to kill him and went away. On 11.05.2008, at about 3:00 am Bairagi Baba was sleeping in open courtyard of the temple. Mahant of

said temple [Narsingh Das (PW-1)] was also sleeping near the Baba. He heard some noises then he woke-up. He saw the appellant inflicting

blows on Baba by knife at his neck and chest. When he shouted, the appellant fled away. Bairagi Baba died on the spot. FIR has been lodged by

Narsingh Das (PW-1) just after the incident at 5.15 am at Police Station Motinagar and registered as Crime No.327/08. After investigation,

charge-sheet under Section 302 of I.P.C. has been filed against the appellant.

After committal of the case, the trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt and

pleaded that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Learned trial Court found the testimony of eye witness Narsingh Das (PW-1) reliable

in support of the prosecution story which was corroborated by the medical evidence also. Prompt FIR was lodged against the appellant. Hence,

the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

The appellant challenged the above findings on the grounds that there is no independent eye witness to support the prosecution story. Narsingh

Das (PW-1) is an interested eye witness. Learned trial Court wrongly appreciated his evidence in favour of the prosecution. Hence, the impugned

judgment is liable to be set aside. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has contended that the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial

Court as per the evidence on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

As per Narsingh Das (PW-1), he witnessed the incident. Bairagi baba (since deceased) was sleeping in the open courtyard of the temple.

Narsinghdas (PW-1) denied that at the time of the incident, he was sleeping in Gaushala behind the temple. He explained that he was sleeping

about 10 steps away from the deceased. He deposed that on the date of incident at about 03.30 am, he heard painful noise of the deceased. Then

he saw that the appellant inflicted blows by knife at his neck and back side of chest and other body parts.

Thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot. Baba fell down on the earth. Narsingh Das (PW-1) informed the whole incident to Lallu (PW-

2) and Pooranlal (PW-3). Lallu (PW-2) and Pooranlal (PW-3) have duly corroborated the entire evidence of Narsingh Das (PW-1). They have

also supported the prosecution story. Narsingh Das (PW-1) lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) just after the incident at Police Station Motinagar.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that conviction cannot be solely based on an interested eye witness. In case of State of U.P. vs.

Satveer & others (2015) 9 SCC 44, Hon''ble the Apex Court has held as under :-

The evidence of the sole witness needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material. Further, such evidence must inspire

confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion.

In our opinion, Narsingh Das (PW-1) is not an interested witness. He had no intimacy with the deceased and had not any enmity with the

appellant. He is an eye witness. His evidence is trustworthy. His presence at spot found reliable to be natural.

In case of Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera Vs. State of Odisha, (2018) 1 SCC 296, Hon''ble the Apex Court has held as under :-

That conviction can be based on a testimony of a single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that it is not the number of

witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important, have been propounded consistently with the apparent emphasis that evidence must be

weighed and not counted, decisive test being whether it has a ring of truth and it is cogent, credible, trustworthy or otherwise.

Virendra Singh (PW-10), Assistant Sub Inspector corroborated the testimony of Narsingh Das (PW-1) and explained that at about 05.15

a.m. FIR has been lodged by Narsingh Das (PW-1). Prompt FIR is sufficient to rule out the possibility that the appellant was falsely implicated by

the witnesses by a concocted false story.

Uday Pratap Singh (PW-11), Assistant Sub Inspector prepared spot map (Ex.P/3) on 11.05.2008. On the same day, he recorded statements

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Puranlal, Lallu and Narsingh Das. This also inspire confidence on the prosecution story. He recovered the

shoes (Article ''D'') and shirt (Article ''G'') of the appellant from the spot, which was worn by him. Knife (Article ''F'') has also been recovered on

the next date of incident.

All the articles were sent to FSL Examination. In the FSL report (Ex.P-21) human blood was found on the shoes and shirt of the deceased.

This evidence duly connect the appellant with the crime. Appellant did not offer any explanation about the source of human blood. How the human

blood was found on his shirt and shoes. His shoes clearly established his presence on the spot on the date of the incident.

Dr. V.K. Sondhiya (PW-5) conducted autopsy of the deceased on 11.05.2008. He found the following injuries on him:-

(i) Penetrating wound size of 4 x 1 x 4 cms on the left side of neck 3 cm above the middle of clavicle runs obliquely downward and medially

muscles and fascia cut.

(ii) Penetrating wound size of 3 x 1 x 4 cms on the left side of chest medially downward.

(iii) Penetrating wound size of 3 x 1 x 4 cms in the back on the right side post axilla line near the 11th rib runs upward, muscle cut and tear in the

liver, peritoneal cavity filled with blood.

In the internal examination Dr. V.K. Sondhiya (PW-5) noticed that lungs, spleen and kidneys were congested and he opined that death of the

deceased was caused due to haemorrhage shock within 24 hours of postmortem. He further opined that all the injuries were sufficient to cause

death of the deceased in natural course. All the injuries were homicidal and ante-mortem in nature and caused by pointed, sharp and penetrating

weapons. We do not find any reason to disbelieve in the opinion of Dr. V.K. Sondhiya (PW-5).

In case of Ram Avtar and others vs. State of U.P., (2017) Cr.L.J. 1097, Hon''ble the Apex Court has held as under :-

Testimony of eye witnesses consistent in all material particulars is reliable. A close scrutiny of the evidence of the eye witnesses leaves no manner

of doubt that not only they have with noteworthy consistency and cohesion authenticated the case of the prosecution in all material particulars.

They have identified as well the appellants and also have provided graphic details of the events in the sequence in which the same unfolded at the

place of occurrence.

Therefore, it is established that the ocular evidence is properly corroborated by the medical evidence. Number of injuries and penetrating sharp

weapon used by the appellant for causing injuries indicates the intention of the appellant that he came to the spot with deadly weapon to commit

the murder of the deceased during midnight in planned manner so that no one can see the incident or caught him. The appellant has chosen to

commit the crime when the deceased was sleeping, therefore, he could not save himself and the commission of offence would be easy.

We are of the opinion that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. for committing murder of

deceased Bairagi Baba. There is no merit in the case to interfere in the impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appellant is in jail.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information along with its record.