Rakesh Tiwari and another vs State of M.P.

Conviction,Conviction

Under Section 149/302 of the IPC.,Imprisonment for life to each.

Under Section 149/460 of the IPC.,R.I. for 1 year to each.

Under Section 148 of the IPC.,R.I. for 1 year to each.

Under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act.,R.I. for 5 years to each

forcibly entered into the courtyard of the house. Though, he was in the other room of the house, but he could see from the top that the accused-",

Rakesh was armed with a ''katta'' in one one hand and carrying bomb in the other hand. The accused - Suresh was also having country bombs in a,

bag and had also taken bombs in the other hand. Other accused persons - Rakku and Mukesh were also having bombs in their hands. The,

deceased strived to run away from the spot, seeing the accused persons throwing bombs, but as she was carrying on pregnancy of 7-8 months she",

could not succeed. He has further stated that when there was blasting caused by explosives, he along with his brother - Kaushal had fled away",

from the spot. It is further deposed by him that the accused persons had chased them and threw 4-5 country made bombs towards them, anyhow",

they could manage to escape. It is stated by him that he had taken the deceased in a jeep; went to the Police Station and lodged a report.,

Seema (PW-2) also deposed that she was at the upper portion in the house and at that time the accused persons - Rakesh, Mukesh, Suresh,",

Sanjay and Rakku came in the house and started abusing. She had seem them blasting with bombs in the courtyard of the house and the deceased,

had received injuries because of explosion caused by the accused persons on her head. Thereafter, the accused persons had fled away.",

Kaushal Singh (PW-3) is the witness who had lodged the FIR. He has stated in his deposition that when he was in the house, the accused -",

Rakesh, Suresh, Mukesh, Rakku and Sanjay Mehtar came to the house and according him, the deceased had asked them to go out, then the",

accused Rakeshn, had blasted the bombs. He has also stated that the accused - Sanjay had also exploded bombs and the accused persons,",

namely, Suresh, Mukesh and Rakku were carrying bombs in a bag. They had entered into the house and started throwing bombs in the courtyard",

of the house. He further stated that they all had run away from the house.,

Phool Singh (PW-4) is a tenant in the house. He also stated that when he heard abuses, he saw the accused persons - Rakesh, Suresh,",

Mukesjh were hurling abuses on the deceased and she was opposing them. He deposed that Ittan (PW-1) tried to run away from the spot. He had,

seen the accused - Rakesh throwing bomb. Thereafter the accused - Sanjay had also thrown one bomb. The accused - Rakesh and other co-,

accused persons were also having bombs. After the bomb explosion, the deceased had received grievous injuries.",

Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Laxminarayan Khandelwal (PW-6), who has found head injury on the back side and a wound of the size : 5 x",

4.5 x 4 cm and from the wound bone was visible. He has also found pieces of pellets and stones in the adhered in the head. Wound was also,

found on the right side of jaws of the size : 1.5 x 1 cm. There was a cut injury near the right eye having the size : 2.5 x 1 x 0.3 cm. He had removed,

the pieces of the pellets and stones from the wounds and according to him the cause of death was due to shock on account of excessive bleeding,

from the head. Seizure of ''katta'' from Suresh and other seizures have also been proved by this independent witness. These seizure memos have,

been further proved by PW-8. The seized articles were sent to FSL and the chemical expert has opined that the same were hand bombs which,

were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The chemical expert has has observed presence of chemicals which conforms,

explosive material. In the FSL report, blood was also found in the earth seized from the spot as well as in the garments worn by the deceased.",

In order to substantiate their arguments regarding contradiction in the statements of witnesses, counsel appearing for the appellants have relied",

on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Krishnegowda & ors. State of Karnataka by Arkalgud Police (Cr.A. No.635/2006, dated 28-3-",

2017). That was a case where the Court has found that there was a clear contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence, therefore,",

benefit of doubt was conferred to the accused persons. Further reliance was placed on the Apex Court judgment rendered in Sahadevan and,

another vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Cr.A. No.1405/2008, dated 8-5-2012). That was a case of extrajudicial confession, there was no eye witness",

account, therefore, it was held that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond any doubt.",

A reference was also made by the counsel for the appellants to the Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Umesh Saket vs. State of,

M.P. (Cr.A. N0.419/2005, dated 21-8- 2017). Facts of the said case were different. There was sole eye witness and his testimony was not found",

to be creditworthy, as there was no corroboration to her statement by other prosecution witnesses, who had reached at the spot. The statement",

was also not corroborated with the medical and FSL report. In the facts of that case, benefit of doubt was extended.",

We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the materials brought on record and the argument advanced on behalf of the accused-,

appellants that there are contradictions, omission and improvement. On a careful scanning of the testimonies of the eye witnesses, we find the same",

to be consistent and coherent as regards complicity of the accused persons for causing death of the deceased by using explosive substances. Their,

statements are further corroborated with the chemical expert report.,

In the present case FIR was lodged in quite promptitude, individually naming the accused-appellants, therefore, the contention that the",

appellants have been falsely implicated cannot be accepted. The accused-appellants were named by these witnesses in their court statements also.,

Some contradictions or omission, in our opinion, are not sufficient to discard the testimonies of eye witnesses, which are well corroborated with",

medical and scientific report in the present case.,

In the other appeal which was tried separately, the prosecution witnesses, namely, Kaushal Singh, Seema and others have supported the",

prosecution case. Thus, on evaluation of entire facts, circumstances and material evidence, we find that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses are",

trustworthy and inspire confidence of this Court, and by no stretch of imagination, the same cannot be disbelieved.",

Consequently, the appeals fail and the same are are dismissed.",

Before parting with the case, we must put on record our unreserved appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus",

curiae. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall remit fees of Rs.4000/- (Rs. four thousand only) to the learned counsel who has assisted,

this Court.,