Tejlal and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.7.1994 passed in S. T. No.45/1993. Two persons father and son-in-law were

prosecuted for commission of murder. Trial Court convicted appellant No.1 Tejlal for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC

and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- while appellant No.2 Parashram has been convicted for commission of

offence punishable under 304-II of IPC and sentenced RI for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/-.

During pendency of this appeal appellant No.1 Tejlal has been died. Hence, present appeal is on behalf of appellant No.2 Parasram.

Prosecution story in brief is that there was a quarrel between appellant Parasram and deceased and in that quarrel another co-accused Tejlal

has pressed the neck of the deceased and inflicted blows on the testicle of the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased became unconscious and he

was died. Report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station and Police registered the offence. After investigation Police filed the charge sheet.

During trial both the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. Trial court held both the appellants guilty and awarded sentence as

mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of eyewitness. Allegation of pressing neck of the

deceased is against the appellant Tejlal. As per evidence of Dr. Dinesh Sharma, who performed postmortem of the deceased there was no other

injury except strangulation on the body of the deceased. Hence, trial Court committed error in convicting the appellant No.2 Parasram for

commission of offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and awarding the sentence. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the

appellants that accused-deceased Tejlal was convicted for commission of murder by the trial Court and cause of death of the deceased was

strangulation. Hence, appellant No.2 Parasram could not be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC and

prayed for allowing the appeal in regard to appellant No.2 Parasram.

Phoolkumari P. W. 6 is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that my son told me that Tejlal had been beating the deceased near public tap.

Thereafter, I went to my house thereafter at public tap. At that time I witnessed that Tejlal was sitting on the chest of the deceased and he was

pressing his neck by both the hands, I told him not to kill the deceased. He abused me also. He had also inflicted blows of fists on the testicle of

the deceased, when I cried loudly then Balram had come and accused ran away from the place of incident. She further deposed that my husband-

the deceased told me that present appellant had also beaten me at the house of Durga Lodhi. Thereafter he became unconscious. We had taken

the deceased to the courtyard of Khurshiram and administered glucose and water to him. He had vomited glucose and blood. We had taken him

Bandol. I lodged the report at the Police Station, when I return back persons told me that deceased is dead. In para 16 of her cross-examination

she deposed that I had not seen that present appellant Parasram had beaten the deceased.

Santosh P. W. 15 is the son of the deceased. He deposed that I was grazing my ox Durga had told me that Parasram had been beating my

father, I immediately rushed and reached near public tap and witnessed that accused Tejlal had been beating my father. He was sitting onr the

deceased and he was pressing his neck by both the hands and beating him by fists. I called my mother, thereafter my mother came there, she

prevented the appellant from beating the deceased. He abused her also. Thereafter, Balram reached on the spot. He had separated the appellant

Tejlal from the deceased. My father told me that present appellant Parasram had also beaten him.

Durga Prasad P. W.7 turned hostile. However, he deposed that present appellant was sitting at my house, after some time the deceased had

also came there. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. I told them not to quarrel, thereafter both went to other place.

Gulab P. W.9 deposed that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. After that quarrel was pacified. In para 11 of his

crossexamination he admitted the fact that after quarrel the deceased went to his house.

Rewaram P. W.10 deposed that present appellant was sitting on the chest of the deceased. In his cross-examination he admitted the fact that

there was scuffle between the present appellant and the deceased and after quarrel both had gone to their house.

Balram P. W.11 deposed that appellant Tejlal had pressed the neck of the deceased. P. W.13 also deposed that there was a quarrel between

Parasram and the deceased and both were abusing to each other.

From the evidence of P.W.6 wife of the deceased and P. W. 15 son of the deceased and other eye witnesses this fact has been proved that

the deceased accused Tejlal had pressed the neck of the deceased.

As per evidence of Dr. Dinesh Sharma P. W.19, who performed the autopsy of the deceased there was two injuries on the body of the person

of the deceased: ""VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

Another injury was of nail. Cause of death was strangulation. Hence, medical evidence proved the fact that except pressing the neck by Tejlal,

no other injury was caused by any other accused to the deceased.

The Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported (2016) 10 SCC 220 has held that if the medical

evidence completely rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. The Apex Court has held as

under:

The position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that

though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-?-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular

testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes far

that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved [See : Abdul Sayeed v . State of

M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259].

In this view of the matter and evidence on record, in our opinion, there is no evidence that present appellant Parasram had caused any injury

on the body of the person of the deceased. The allegation of pressing the neck is against the appellant Tejlal. He has alaready been died. Hence,

conviction of appellant Parasram for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC is contrary to law. Consequently, appeal filed

by the appellant Parasram is hereby allowed. His conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Appellant is on bail. His

bail bonds are hereby discharged.