Ramchandra vs State of M.P.

I.S. Shrivastava, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Court of Shri A.K.Shrivastava, 3rd A.S.J., Ratlam in S.T. No.20/2000 by which the appellant Ram Chandra has been convicted under S. 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-.

According to brief facts of the case, on 05.11.99 complainant Khushal lodged a report at Police Station, Sailana that in the morning when he was going to Narayangarh from his village his Bhabhi Baludi called him and told that her husband Lahling is lying dead in the Tapra (hut) of appellant Ram Chandra. Therefore, he went there and saw that his brother Lahling was lying dead there. He informed Mansingh and Rangji and took them to lodge report at Police Station. On report, Merg No. 27/99 was registered. On the same day accused Ram Chandra lodged report against deceased Lahling about the incident of 12.00 a.m. on 4.11.99 that deceased Lahling abused his mother and on protest by Ram Chandra, he assaulted by wooden rod on his head due to which he sustained injury. He also rushed on his mother to assault her. Due to night he could not come to report immediately and at 8.15 a.m. on 5.11.99 he lodged report which was registered as non-cognizable report under S. 302 of I.P.C.

In the investigation of Merg report, it was found that in the night at the time of quarel in between Lahling and Ram Chandra, Ram Chandra caused dangerous injury in the head of Lahling due to which he died. Hence Crime No. 154/99 was registered at Police Station, Sailana under S. 302 of I.P.C. On the information of the accused said leg of the cot by which he assaulted the deceased, was seized and after completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the appellant. After trial the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

It has been argued by appellant''s counsel that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There was no direct evidence but on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the appellant was involved in this case. The prosecution failed to prove the circumstantial evidence. It was not proved that the appellant was seller of wine to whom deceased came to purchase it. It was not proved that in the night the appellant assaulted deceased and caused him dangerous injuries. The memo of seizure was not proved. The seized leg of cot was not produced in the evidence. The seizure memo was legally not proved. There is no evidence of last seen in this case. Under the circumstances, the appellant was not liable to be convicted on mere suspicion that since he had dispute with the deceased, therefore, he murdered the deceased. There was no evidence against the appellant. Hence appeal be allowed.

It has been argued by respondent''s counsel that the case was proved against the appellant on the basis of evidence produced before the trial court. The appeal being devoid of merits, be dismissed accordingly.

Considered the arguments. Record of the trial Court perused.

According to the statement of Baludi (PW.2), her husband Lahling in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. went to the house of Ram Chandra to purchase wine but he did not return. As she was having a small child, therefore, she did not go to search her husband. In the morning she sent her son Balu PW. 14. He went there and on return he told that his father is lying dead having bleeding injury in his head. Thereafter she went there and saw her husband was lying there dead. Ram Chandra was not at his home as he also had gone to lodge the report to police station. She informed her Jeth (elder brother of her husband) Rahling (PW.I) about the incident. Then he came to the place of incident and went to report to police. Balu (PW. 14), 10 years old son of deceased, deposed that on the date of incident, his father came to house after fishing and asked her mother to cook and went to purchase wine at the house of Ram Chandra but he did not return in the night. In the morning on instruction of his mother, he went to Tapra (hut) of Ram Chandra and found that his father was lying dead there having bleeding injury in the head. Thereafter he returned and informed his mother. Rahling (PW.I) deposed that Bapu at about 8.00 a.m. informed him that Ram Chandra and Lahling had quarelled with each other and Lahling is lying dead before the Tapra of Ram Chandra. He also came to know that Ram Chandra along with his mother and Chowkidar Nathu, had gone to report at the Police Station. He was informed by Baludi, the wife of Lahling that in the night her husband went to Ram Chandra to purchase wine but he did not return. In the morning she sent her son Balu who on return informed that Lahling is lying dead there. He has been murdered by Ram Chandra by leg of cot. He saw dead body of Lahling. He was having bleeding injury in his head. Then he went to lodge report at Police Station. Khushal (PW. 18) confirming above fact, deposed that Baludi informed about the death of Lahling. Hence he went on the spot and saw Lahling dead there. He was having two injuries on his head. Baludi (PW.2) told him that in the night Lahling went to the house of Ram Chandra to purchase wine, who was selling it. She does not know who killed Lahling.

Ramesh (PW.8) did not support the fact that Ram Chandra was selling something. He supported the fact that after arrival of the police in the village, he went to the Tapra (hut) of Ram Chandra and saw Lahling was lying dead in the cotton field before the house of Ram Chandra. Rangji (PW. 10) deposed that he does not know that what happened in between Ram Chandra and Lahling. Mansingh (PW.4) came to him and told that Lahling had died hence he accompanied him to report at the police station. Nathu (PW. 11) also deposed same fact that in the morning he went to the police station at that time Mansingh, Rangji and Khushal came there and he came to know that they lodged report that in the field of Ram Chandra, Lahling is lying dead. He has been declared hostile and did not support that any incident took place in the night.

Bapu (PW. 13) was declared hostile. He has not supported the fact that Balu came to him and told anything about Ram Chandra. He did not see dead body of Lahling. He came to know from the villagers that Lahling was dead. Then he went to the spot and saw that Lahling was lying dead. He did not talk to Chowkidar and Chowkidar did not tell him anything.

In this way all these witnesses have simply deposed the fact that dead body of Lahling was lying in the cotton field before the house of Ram Chandra. There is no evidence that Ram Chandra was selling wine. The wife of decased Lahling, Baludi (PW.2) and son Balu (PW. 14) deposed that on previous night, Lahaling went from the house saying that he was going to the house of Ram Chandra to purchase wine and in the night he did not return and in the morning he was found dead.

According to Investigating Officer, Ramesh Javeriya (PW. 15) during investigation he arrested accused Ram Chandra and prepared arrest memo Ex.P.6. On the information of Ram Chandra he prepared memo Ex.P.7 under S. 27 of Evidence Act and seized leg of the cot, prepared seizure memo Ex.P.8 before the witnesses. The independent witnesses of memo Ex.P.7 and seizure memo Ex.P.8 were Mansingh (PW.4) and Nathu (PW. 11). They have not supported the prosecution case. According to Mansingh (PW.4) in memo Ex.P.7 leg of cot was told to be hidden in the Tapra (hut) but this witness has not deposed that who gave this information and to whom this information was given about the seizure. He deposed that leg of cot was seized which was blood stained. But he did not depose that from the house of the accused it was seized and he went there. In cross examination he deposed that it is correct that the leg of cot was not recovered before him and nothing was seized and sealed before him. Nathu (PW. 11) deposed in this respect that Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 bear his signatures. Ram Chandra did not give any information about the leg of cot before him and it was not seized before him. On repeated questions, after being declared hostile, he reiterated that Ram Chandra did not give any information before him and leg of cot was not seized before him. Police got papers signed from him. In this way both the witnesses did not support the fact that any information was given by the appellant Ram Chandra on the recovery of leg of cot and it was seized before them. The leg of cot which was seized by the I.O., was not produced before the trial court at the time of evidence. Therefore, the memo Ex.P.7 and seizure memo Ex. P.8 were not legally proved as has been held in the case of Raju Dubey Vs. State of M.P., . From the seizure memo Ex.P.8 it does not reveal that it was sealed on the spot. Since it was a case of blind murder, hence it was the duty of the I.O. to find out whether any finger prints of the appellant were available on the leg of the cot, which could have been an important evidence in this respect. But no such steps were taken by the I.O. In the absence of finger prints and any connecting evidence, it can not be presumed that by this leg of the cot, the appellant assaulted the deceased and caused his death. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that by seized leg of cot, deceased Lahling was murdered.

It was argued by respondent''s counsel that the deceased was last seen with the appellant which is evident from the report Ex. P. 21 lodged by the appellant. Hence it was proved that the appellant, in quarel, asasulted the deceased and killed him. In reply it has been argued by the appellant''s counsel that from the report Ex.P.21 it does not reveal that the appellant also assaulted Lahling.

Considered the arguments. From the report Ex.P.21 it revealed simply that in the night of 4.11.99 at 12.00 a.m. deceased Lahling came to the house of Ram Chandra and without any reason he abused his mother and on protest, Lahling assaulted by wooden rod on the head of Ram Chandra which caused him injury. He also rushed on his mother to assault her. Due to night he could not come to lodge report. This report does not reveal that Ram Chandra also assasulted Lahling at that time. Had there been a fact that Ram Chandra also assaulted Lahling at that time, then it could have been possible to presume that Lahling could have died due to injuries caused by appellant Ram Chandra. But since there is no whisper in the report Ex.P.21 that Ramchanra also assaulted Lahling to kill him then this fact could not be presumed automatically. There is no evidence of the prosecution that at the time of incident, when Lahling came to the house of Ram Chandra and assaulted him Ram Chandra also assaulted Lahling. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to this fact it cannot be presumed that appellant Ram Chandra assaulted Lahling due to which he succumbed.

Therefore, there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the murder of deceased Lahling. The information memo Ex.P.7 and seizure memo Ex.P.8 were not proved by the independent witnesses. The seized leg of cot was not produced before the Court at the time of evidence. Therefore, memo Ex.P.7 and seizure memo Ex.P.8 were not legally proved. The finger prints of appellant were not collected during investigation to connect the appellant with the seized leg of cot. Therefore, there was no evidence to prove that the appellant was guilty of murder of Lahling. Under the circumstances we are of the view that this appeal deserves to the allowed.

On the basis of above discussion, this appeal is allowed and appellant is acquitted from the charges of S. 302 of the I.P.C. He is in jail. Hence he should be released immediately. Fine, if any deposited, be returned to the appellant.