Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302 r/w. 34 & 324 – in India theory of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” is not applicable and the Court is duty bound to extract the truth from the statements of the eye-witnesses. Only on the basis of some contradiction in the statements, with regard to some accused, the whole statements cannot be thrown out.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR

DIVISION BENCH

BEFORE: HON.SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV AND HON. SHRI JUSTICE S.K.AWASTHI

30.11.2017

Criminal Appeal No. 89/2000

Raghunath Singh and Another

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh

Shri M.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Kamal Jain, learned Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State.

J U D G M E N T

Per S.K.Awasthi, J.

The appellants have preferred the present appeals against the judgment dated 14.12.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.20/1998, whereby the appellant- Raghunath has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 324 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-, and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, with default stipulation. The appellant Balram has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.

2. The facts of the case, in short, are that on 25.11.1997 at about 7:30 am, when complainant Harnam Singh, Bablu and Devendra alongwith their cattle were going to forest outside the village Tyonda, near Puliya, the accused persons Imrat Singh Yadav, Raghunath, Balram, Ramesh and Khachora were standing with bullock-cart. Accused Shankarlal was also standing there. As soon as Bablu’s cattle passed from the Puliya, Ox of accused Imrat Singh Yadav brayed, due to which accused Raghunath gave a blow of axe on the head of Bablu and he fell down on the ground. After that Devendra ran away to the house and came back alongwith his father Ramsingh, brother Munna. Then the accused Balram gave a blow of axe on the head of Ramsingh as a result of which he fainted down. When Harnam Singh came to rescue Ramsingh then accused Imrat Singh Yadav inflicted lathi blow on his head and Shankarlal hit Munna Lal by lathi blow on his leg. Ramesh Dhanak, Khachora Adiwasi, Machal Singh Yadav, Mohan Singh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav saved the injured persons. Ultimately the complainant Harnam Singh along with injured Ramsingh, Munnalal reached at the Police Station Tyonda. All the injured persons were sent for medical examination. Dr. B.P.Sharma (PW/9) examined the injured Harnam Singh, Bablu, Munnalal and Ramsingh and gave his report Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/9. The injured persons were referred for further investigation and treatment to the District Hospital Vidisha but on the way, Ramsingh died when he was being carried to Vidisha hospital. The dead body of the deceased Ramsingh was sent for post-mortem. Dr. Shekhar Jalvankar (PW/12) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ramsingh and gave a report Ex.P/11. He found lacerated wound on left frontal parietal region of head of the deceased and fracture was also there. According to him, the deceased died due to extradural haemorrhage shock and the death of the deceased Ramsingh was homicidal.

3. During the investigation, statements of Munnalal, Machal Singh, Kamlesh, Bablu, Devendra, Dilawar Khan and Harnam Singh were recorded by Station House Officer Shri Jitendra Singh Tomar. On the next day he went to the spot and prepared a spot map Ex.P/14. The accused persons were arrested and on interrogation, they gave information about the various weapons. Axes were recovered from the appellants Raghunath and Balram with recovery memos Ex.P-18 and P-19 respectively. All the recovery articles received from the hospital were sent for Forensic Science examination. The statements of other witnesses were also recorded. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda who committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Vidisha and ultimately, it was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha.

4. The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity of Panchayat Election. At the time of incident, Harnam, Babloo and Munnalal also caused marpeet with the appellant Raghunath who also lodged a report against the complainant party. The appellant Raghunath was medically examined by Dr. B.P.Sharma but the police has not taken any action against the complainant party. In defence, they have examined Shayamlal (DW/1), Munnalal Sharma (DW/2), Dr. B.P.Sharma (DW/3), Alauddin (DW/4), Mohan Singh (PW/5) and Narayan Prasad (DW/6).

5. Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the accused Imrat Singh and Shankar Singh for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to two months rigorous imprisonment which they have already undergone, whereas the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has erred while relying the statements of the witnesses who were close relatives and interested witnesses. There are major contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of interested witnesses and their statements have been partly disbelieved by the trial Court even then the trial Judge had adopted the theory of “Choose and pick”, which is contrary to the principle of law. On the same evidence against all the accused, the trial Court has acquitted two accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and convicted the rest accused persons, which is against the principle of law and he prayed for that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be also acquitted.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State supported the conclusion recorded by the trial Court and prayed for rejection of the appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In the present case, it is to be considered as to whether the death of the deceased Ramsingh was homicidal in nature or not? In this connection, evidence given by Dr. Shekhar Jalvankar (PW/12) is important, who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Ramsingh and gave a report Ex.P-11. He found stitched wound over left frontal parietal region length 8 cm.

10. On opening the body, Dr. Shekhar Jalvankar (PW/12) found that left frontal parietal bone of the deceased was broken and extradural haemorrhage was present in brain. Although he has not given any definite opinion regarding the nature of death, but looking to the injuries received by the deceased it cannot be a case of suicide. Similarly, such injuries could not be caused by the deceased himself. There is no material on record which indicates that the injuries could be sustained by him in any accident and therefore, it is presumed that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.