Ram Lal Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2008 passed by

Second Additional and Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No.62/2008, whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201 and 194 of the IPC and sentenced imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.200/-, R.I. for three years and R.I. for ten years

respectively with default stipulations.

It is not in dispute that deceased Prem Singh aged about 5 years was the son of appellant Ramlal. He was handicap and died due to burn

injuries on 03.11.2007 at about 10:00-11:00 am at field of Gadouha Har, Village Bandi, Police Station Singhpur.

Brief facts of the prosecution case is that there was a land dispute between appellant and Vishwanath (P/11). On 03.11.2007 at about 12:45

am, the appellant lodged FIR, Ex. P/19 at Police Station, Singhpur with reference to death of his handicap son Prem Singh. He alleged that,

Vishwanath (PW/11) put fire in Bari (fence) and Millu Kol, Sukman and Munnilal were assisting him. Therefore, the appellant with his wife Rajibai

and handicap son Prem Singh (deceased) went to the spot and they objected to burn the said Bari (fence). Suddenly, Ramesh Kol threatened to

ablaze them. Hence, wife of the appellant ran away leaving the deceased Prem Singh on the spot. She saw Ramesh Kol put his son Prem Singh in

the burnt Bari (fence). Prem Singh died on the spot due to burn injuries. On the report of the appellant, merg intimation was registered by

Inspector V.P. Mishra (P/16) at Police Station, Singhpur. During the investigation, police found that the appellant himself committed murder of his

handicap son. He falsely implicated Vishwanath with the crime. Therefore, appellant was arrested on 06.11.2007. After recording of his

memorandum, charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.

Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 302, 201, 194 and 182 of the I.P.C. against the appellant. He abjured guilt and pleaded

that he was falsely implicated by Vishwanath with the help of police. 3 Cr. A. No.306/2009 Rambhajan (DW/1), Rajibai (DW/2), son and wife of

the appellant were examined as a defence witnesses.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing appellant for offence

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that appellant may not be acquitted from the charge levelled against him.

It is not in dispute that the appellant is father of deceased Prem Singh and deceased was about 5-6 years old and handicap boy. He was also

blind. Bhawani Prasad Mishra (PW-16) deposed that the appellant himself reported about the incident. Hence, merg intimation Ex.P/18 was

registered by him. As per Ex.P/18, the appellant had enmity with Vishwanath Kushwaha. The appellant possessed the government land and was

residing there. Earlier the said land was possessed by Vishwanath. On 3.11.2007 at about 10:00-11:00 a.m, the appellant was in his hut. When his

son Rambhajan informed that their Badi was burning then, the appellant went to the spot. He saw that Vishwanath, Milan, Munna Kol and Sukman

all were putting loose pieces of Badi in the fire. Ramesh Kol, Harishchandra and Chhannu were also standing there. His wife Raji Bai took with

her, their handicap younger son Prem Singh (since deceased). They tried to stop Vishwanath and other. Hence, Ramesh Kol threatened them to

kill them. Therefore, the appellant and his wife ran away from the spot. They turned and saw that Ramesh Kol picked their son and threw him into

the fire, resulting Prem Singh died. The appellant ran away and informed the incident to Ramsukh Lohiya, who was working in his field and lodged

the report to the Police Station, Singhpur. Merg intimation Ex.P/18 indicates that Prem Singh was not able to walk by legs and his hands and blind

also was alive then, he was thrown in the fire.

Now the testimony of Dr. R.K. Mishra (PW-10) is very important. He conducted the postmortem of deceased on 4.11.2007 at about 10:20

a.m. with another Dr. Amar. They found that whole body of the deceased was burnt. No smell of kerosene oil was present. However, he did not

found any ligature mark on him. His trachea, lungs, liver, spleen and kidney were congested. Both the chambers of heart with full of blood and

organs were swelled due to gas. The dead body of the deceased has 100% burnt. Both the doctors failed to give any definite opinion with regard

to burn injuries, which were not ante mortem in nature or it was caused after death of the deceased. Therefore, they preferred the matter for

chemical examination as mentioned in postmortem report Ex.P/11.

In cross-examination, Dr. R.K. Mishra (PW-10) clearly admitted that he has not found any external injuries except the burning. In para 14, he

explained that if a dead person was thrown in the fire then, carbon particles were not present in trachea because at that time, he was in breathing

condition. It is also important to mention here that in the postmortem, doctor has not found any carbon particles in the trachea of the deceased.

Therefore, the medical evidence establish that the deceased was not alive while he was thrown into the fire.

In the merg intimation Ex.P/18, the appellant''s case was that his son was alive when Ramesh Kol was throwing him into the fire. The doctors

opinion are sufficiently rebutting the appellant''s case. Now the question arises that prior to burn his body, who killed the deceased with this regard

the testimony of Laxmi Bai (PW-1) and Vishwanath (PW-11) is important. They stated that Vishwanath put fire in the garbage of Beshram''s plant

and that time, the appellant came there along with his handicap son, (who was covered with a shawl) and thrown him in the fire. Prem Singh

already died. His leg and neck were tied. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from the field and shouted to save his son. Vishwanath (PW-11)

ablaze his son. So Vishwanath (PW-11) was also shouting that the appellant killed his son and thrown him into the fire, then many villagers came

there. Vishwanath also supported the testimony of his daughter Laxmi Bai (PW-1). He deposed that he picked up the deceased from the fire that

time. He also deposed that his neck and legs were tied by the rope and his body was naked. Thereafter, he communicate the incident to village

Sarpanch. Ranjanu (PW-2), Sohan (PW- 4) and Ramesh Kol (PW-6) also corroborated the testimony of Laxmi Bai (PW-1) and her father

Vishwanath (PW-11). Ramesh Kol (PW-6) denied the suggestion of defence counsel that he threw the deceased into the fire. Above set of

evidence establish that Prem Singh was already died when he was thrown into the fire by his father/appellant.

In accused statement, the appellant pleaded that he possessed the government land and cultivated it. Tahsildar imposed a fine on him and

Vishwanath tried to dispossess him. The appellant resided with his family members in the disputed land after constructing a hut. At the time of

incident, Vishwanath (PW-11) and his daughter Laxmi along with Ramesh and Munna came to his land and ablaze his Badi then, he took his

handicap son with him and reached on the spot. Vishwanath snatched his son and thrown him into the fire. Vishwanath had falsely implicated him in

this case. To establish his defence, he examined his son Rambhajan (DW-1) and his wife Raji Bai (DW-2).

Raji Bai (DW-2) admitted that the appellant and Vishwanath had old enmity. She supported the defence of her husband but she stated

contrary to the medical evidence, whereas as per medical evidence, Prem Singh was already died. The learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that due to fear of Vishwanath and others, they fled away from the spot.

The learned Government Advocate has contended that conduct of the appellant shows that he was the culprit who killed his handicap son to

get rid of him and implicate his enemy Vishwanath and others. After getting opportunity, he threw his handicap son in a burnt Bari. He also

contended that conduct of the appellant is very important, if his defence can be considered true. Normally, the father and mother or the close

relatives of the victim try to rescue him. They never left their child in helpless condition for causing their death, particularly, when the deceased was

only 5-6 years old boy and he was 70% disabled person and he was not able to save himself. In that count, as parents of the deceased, the

appellant and his wife firstly tried to save him then they would proceed to report the matter to the Police Station. The conduct of the appellant and

his wife is unnatural.

We are of the considered opinion that the contention of learned Government Advocate has great value in the peculiar circumstances of this

case. Rambhajan (DW/1) elder brother of the deceased supported the defence of his father. He deposed that at the time of incident, his sister

Shanti Bai was also going to school and they saw Vishwanath to snatch the deceased from his father''s hand and thrown him in the fire. But Shanti

Bai has not been examined.

In such circumstances, we also relied on the testimony of Laxmi Bai (PW-1) and Vishwanath Kushwaha (PW/11) because the burden lies on

the accused to establish that prior to burning the body of the deceased, how the deceased died and what was the cause of his death while the

deceased was with his parents in alive condition. Appellant took him with his wife on the spot unnecessarily but the appellant, his wife

Rajibai(DW/2) and his son Rambhajan (DW/1) could not explain the cause of death of the deceased. Daddulal (PW/14) has only deposed that he

saw the dead body. Wife of the appellant had only narrated him that 4-5 persons ablazed there Badi.

Investigating Officer B.P. Mishra (PW/16) prepared dead body Panchnama Ex.P/15 and spot map Ex.P/20 then he recorded the statements

of the witnesses. During investigation, he known about the dispute land between the parties and that land was government land possessed by

Vishwanath. Thereafter, the appellant took that land on Adhiya . The appellant beat the daughter of Vishwanath and therefore, he was facing a

criminal trial. Investigating Officer also known about the fact that on the date of incident, Vishwanath collected extra pieces of Bari and burnt it to

implicate him falsely in the crime. The appellant thrown his son in the fire and lodged a false report against Vishwanath and some other persons

including Munna Kol and Ramesh, who were the witnesses in earlier criminal case. Even though, the police has not registered any case against the

appellant for lodging a false report against Vishwanath.

We find that the ocular evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The testimony of Laxmi Bai (PW/1) and Vishwanath (PW/11)

is corroborated by other eye witnesses also, which establish that the appellant took a false defence to save him from the criminal liability for killing

his own son.

We do not find that learned trial Court has wrongly evaluated the prosecution evidence and held the appellant guilty for committing murder of

his handicap son. Accordingly, this appeal has no merit hence, it is hereby dismissed.

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