Vijay @ Chandra Vijay Gupta vs State of M.P.

Rakesh Saksena, J.—Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.9.2002, passed by Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Sessions Trial No. 88/2002, convicting him under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. In short, the prosecution case is that on 30.11.2001, at about 4.00 pm, when complainant Bodhan Singh (PW-3) was sitting in front of the house of Jagdish Sahu, accused Vijay Gupta and Mohan Kewat alongwith Lavkesh Singh, the deceased, reached there. Lavkesh Singh asked Bodhan Singh to arrange for a chicken party. Lavkesh and Vijay Gupta purchased a chicken, collected grocery and gave it to Mahto Kewat for cooking. After about one hour, when chicken was prepared and Bodhan Singh (PW-3) was ready to serve the food, one Basant Gupta reached there. It was objected by accused Mohan Kewat as to why he came without invitation, but Lavkesh admonished Mohan Kewat. However, when Bodhan Singh and Vijay Gupta pacified Mohan Kewat, he joined them. At that time Lavkesh told to Vijay Gupta that fake grocery was being sold from his shop. Vijay Gupta got enraged and went away. In the night, at about 10.30 pm, when Bodhan and Lavkesh were going back to their house, Vijay Gupta and Mohan Kewat came there armed with axe and iron rod. Vijay Gupta dealt blows with the axe on the head of Lavkesh due to which he died. Mohan assaulted Bodhan with iron rod due to which he suffered injuries. Bodhan (PW-3) went to Police Station, Bijuri and lodged a report on 1.12.2001 at about 4.00 am. Investigating Officer Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7) recorded first information report (Ex.P/15) and also a Murg Intimation Report (Ex.P/16). Bodhan Singh was sent to hospital, Bijuri for treatment and examination of his injuries. Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7) went at the spot, conducted inquest proceedings, drew inquest memorandum (Ex.P/17) and sent the dead body of Lavkesh Singh for postmortem examination.

Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1) examined the injuries of Bodhan Singh (PW-3) and also conducted autopsy of the body of Lavkesh Singh. He found injuries on the body of Bodhan Singh caused by hard and blunt object and prepared injury report (Ex.P/1). On postmortem examination of the body of deceased, Dr. Kori found three incised injuries on his head and face. These injuries were caused by some sharp edged weapon. He submitted his postmortem examination report (Ex.P/6).

After investigation, police filed charge sheet against three accused persons viz. Appellant Vijay @ Chandra Vijay Gupta, Mohanlal Kewat and Bhole @ Jawaharlal. The case was thereafter committed for trial.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant Vijay Gupta, u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Mohanlal and u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Bhole. All the accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. Though no specific defence was put by appellant Vijay Gupta in his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it was suggested in the course of trial that it was Bodhan Singh (PW-3), who had caused injuries to deceased.

Prosecution, to support its case, examined 7 witnesses in the court. Learned trial judge, relying on the evidence of Bodhan Singh (PW-3) and finding it corroborated by the evidence of Ganga Prasad Pandey (PW-6) and Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1), held appellant Vijay Gupta guilty of the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Other accused persons viz. Mohan Kewat and Bhole were convicted u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant Vijay Gupta has filed this appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court misappreciated the evidence in holding the appellant guilty. The evidence of sole eyewitness Bodhan Singh (PW-3) was not reliable since there were material contradictions and omissions in his evidence. Injuries were also found on the body of appellant, but they were not explained by the prosecution. Bodhan Singh (PW-3) was also made to sit in the police station for sometime. This indicated that appellant was falsely implicated. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the evidence of Bodhan Singh (PW-3), which stood corroborated by the medical evidence, was trustworthy particularly because he and appellant were friends. There was no reason for him to have made false accusation of murder of Lavkesh against appellant.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.

It has not been disputed that Lavkesh Singh, the deceased, died of homicidal injuries. The information of his death was got recorded at police station by Bodhan Singh (PW-3). Investigating Officer Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7) recorded first information report (Ex.P/15) and Murg Intimation (Ex.P/16). He conducted inquest proceedings in front of Ajit Singh (PW-4) and recorded memorandum (Ex.P/17). The dead body of deceased was sent to PHC Bijuri for postmortem examination where Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1) conducted the same. Dr. Kori deposed that he found following injuries on the body of deceased:-

Incised wound on forehead left side, vertically placed, going downwards laterally up to left eyebrow. Size 6 cm x 2� cm x 3 cm (brain deep). Frontal bone was broken into multiple pieces. The pieces of bone pierced into brain tissue.

Incised wound on right side of face extending from medial end of right eyebrow up to 3 cm below to right eye. The size of injury was 8 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm. Under portions of the wound were injured. Maxilla bone, right side of frontal bone and nasal bones were fractured into several pieces. Hard Palate was broken into multiple pieces. Ethmoid bone was also fractured in multiple pieces.

Incised wound on lower lip extending to right chin. Size of wound was 6 x 2� x 3 cm. Under parts of the injuries were damaged. Mandible was broken in two pieces and two incisors and one canine teeth were missing.

On internal examination, Dr. Kori found that undigested food and rice was filled in his stomach.

Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by some sharp and heavy weapon. They were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death was injury to brain by injury No. 1 and 2 resulting in haemorrhagic shock and coma. Injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death was homicidal in nature. Postmortem report (Ex.P/6) was written and signed by him.

From the aforesaid evidence, it has been amply established that Lavkesh Singh died due to homicidal injuries caused to him by some heavy sharp weapon.

The next question before us is whether appellant caused injuries to deceased which resulted into his death. Admittedly the case against appellant rested upon the sole evidence of eyewitness Bodhan Singh (PW-3). He deposed that on 30th November 2001 he was sitting on the platform of Panchayat Secretary. Lavkesh, Vijay and Mohan came to him and requested for having a chicken party to which he readily agreed. They purchased a chicken from Abdul Kalam and went to the house of Mahto Kewat for cooking the chicken. They gave grocery and flour to Mahto Kewat. After about one hour, all of them assembled there and he made preparation for serving the dinner. In the meanwhile, Basant Gupta reached there. Lavkesh Singh wished him to join the feast, but accused Mohan did not agree and admonished and pushed Basanat away saying why he came there as an uninvited guest. Basant went away. Lavkesh rebuked and insulted Mohan saying that he was also their friend. When accused Vijay pacified, Mohan sat in the house of Mahto Kewat. At the same time, Lavkesh told to accused Vijay that he used to sell fake articles from his shop, which resulted into a quarrel between them. Mohan and Vijay went away. Bodhan (PW-3) further stated that after about 10 minutes, when he was coming out of the house of Mahto Kewat, Vijay and Mohan came there wielding axe and iron rod. When they reached near the door of Komal Sahu, Vijay told to Lavkesh that he would beat him. When Lavkesh retorted and challenged him, he took out an axe kept under his shawl and dealt 3-4 blows with it on the head of Lavkesh. Lavkesh fell down and died. According to Bodhan, when he tried to intervene accused Bhole caught hold of his neck and grappled with him and accused Mohan dealt 3-4 blows of iron rod. Accused persons then went away. He went to the house of Lavkesh, but he found nobody there, then he went back to his house and informed the incident to his elder brother Ayodhya Singh. Ayodhya Singh called a dresser viz. Pandey. He asked Pandey and Ayodhya Singh to see Lavkesh. They went and saw Lavkesh lying dead. He then went to Police Station, Bijuri and lodged report (Ex.P/15) and Murg Intimation (Ex.P/16).

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there were material omissions in the first information report (Ex.P/15) lodged by Bodhan Singh, therefore, his evidence was not reliable. He also submitted that the injuries were also found on the body of appellant, but these injuries were not explained by Bodhan Singh.

It is true that there appeared discrepancy in respect to the actual place where the incident occurred, but, in our opinion, this discrepancy was not so material to render the evidence of Bodhan Singh unreliable. In first information report (Ex.P/15), Bodhan Singh did not say that after about 10 minutes of their leaving the house of Mahto Kewat, Mohan and Vijay, armed with axe and iron rod, reached there and Vijay told to deceased that he would beat him and thereafter assaulted him with axe, but these omissions also cannot be held to be material as they were merely the details which could not essentially be expected from a witness to have been mentioned in the first information report. First information report cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia. It is common when a witness makes a statement in the court, he is bound to speak some more about the occurrence then what he stated to police. All these improvements, therefore, normally cannot be held sufficient for branding a witness lier. The facts deposed by Bodhan Singh (PW-3) that he went to his house, informed the incident to his brother Ayodhya Singh, who called a dresser, and sent them to see Lavkesh Singh were though not stated in the first information report or in the police statement, but, on a sincere analysis of his evidence, we find truth in the story narrated by him. His evidence finds corroboration from the first information report (Ex.P/15) lodged by him in the next morning. He clearly stated that appellant assaulted deceased with axe on his head. His evidence stands further corroborated by dresser Ganga Prasad Pandey (PW-6) and the evidence of Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1), who found three incised injuries on the head-face of deceased and further from the fact that the axe recovered at the instance of appellant was found stained with human blood, vide FSL report Ex. P/22. The presence of Bodhan (PW-3), at the spot, is established by the fact that he also suffered injuries in the incident. Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1), vide his report (Ex.P/1) found following injuries on his body:

"(1) Lacerated wound 3 x 3/4 x bone deep on the left parietal region of the skull.

(2) Lacerated wound 4 x 3/4 x bone deep on the left parietal region just below the injury No. 1.

(3) An oblique contusion 6 x 2 cm on the back side of left scapula." In the opinion of Dr. Kori, these injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours before his examination.

Learned Counsel for the appellant next argued that injuries found on the body of appellant were not explained by the prosecution witness Bodhan Singh (PW-3), therefore, his evidence was not worthy of credit.

It is true that after his arrest on 2.12.2001 appellant Vijay Gupta was sent for medical examination. Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1) found one lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the left occipital region of his skull. This injury was caused by some hard and blunt object between 24 to 72 hours of examination. His report is Ex. P/5. But, it is well settled that in each and every case the prosecution is not supposed to explain the injuries of accused. Appellant, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., did not say as to how he received the said injury. It was not his case that deceased assaulted him. It is true that he put suggestions that Bodhan Singh (PW-3) assaulted to him as well as to deceased in the quarrel, but there was absolutely no evidence or material on record to probablize this suggestion. Apart from it, his injury was of very trivial in nature. In view of the evidence of Bodhan Singh (PW-3), which stood supported from the other circumstances, no inference was possible that deceased or Bodhan Singh (PW-3) caused the said injury to him.

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that Bodhan Singh (PW-3) was made to sit in the police station for a long time, therefore, a doubt was created that he was the assailant. No doubt Bodhan Singh (PW-3) admitted that when he returned from the hospital at about 10.00 O''clock in the morning, he remained at police station till 4-5 O''clock in the evening. In the night also he was at police station and went back to his house at about 11-12 am in the morning. He passed 30-40 hours in the police station before he was permitted to go. In our opinion, merely by these facts no inference can be drawn that Bodhan Singh was also a suspect. It is quite natural for the police to make a person sit at the police station particularly in villages when a murder is reported, with a view to ensure that any information given by that witness was correct or truthful.

After a close appraisal of the evidence of Bodhan Singh (PW-3) we find that his evidence was trustworthy and he was an absolutely reliable witness. In our opinion, learned court below committed no error in placing reliance on his evidence and holding that it was appellant, who assaulted deceased with an axe and caused his death. In view of the nature of injuries, as revealed from the evidence of Dr. D.K. Kori (PW-1), it can be held with certainty that appellant assaulted deceased with axe with the intention of causing his death. We are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the incident was sudden and without premeditation.

For the afore said reasons, the finding of conviction of appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him is affirmed. Appeal is dismissed.