Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan vs State Of M.P. on 17 August, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
1 Criminal Appeal No.1360/2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia and
Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Criminal Appeal No.1360 of 2007
Mohan and others
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
***************
Heard through video conferencing.
Shri A.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri A.S. Sisodiya, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
*****
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 17/08/2021)
Per: Subodh Abhyankar J.
1] This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement dated 20/11/2007 passed by
the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.380/2006
whereby while finding the appellants guilty, the learned Judge of the Trial
Court has convicted the appellants as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Appellant Section Act Imprisonme Fine Imprisonme
nt nt in lieu of
fine
No.1 302, 323 IPC Life and 25,000/- 5 years
two years and
RI 3,000/-
No.2, 3 and 4 302/34 IPC Life and 25,000/- 5 years and
324/34 two years and six months
R.I. 3,000/-
2 Criminal Appeal No.1360/2007
2] In brief, the facts of the case are that on 06/07/2006, at around 10
O'clock in the night, appellant No.1 Mohan Singh, appellant No.2 Bhagwan
Singh, appellant No.3 Babulal and appellant No.4 Bhullu Singh arrived at the
house of the deceased Unkar Singh on account of an issue of right of way
which had been brewing between the parties in respect of their land from the
afternoon only when they had altercation while accused persons were taking
their tractor from the field of the complainant Rajesh to which he objected. It
is alleged that in the night when the appellants reached PW/1 Rajesh's house,
appellant no.1 Mohan Singh called Unkar Singh, the father of complainant
Rajesh out of his house and after some heated exchange of words, Mohan
singh started inflicting knife injuries to Onkar Singh which he had brought
with him as a result of which Unkar Singh suffered many stab wounds and
succumbed to injuries. It is also alleged that when Indar Singh PW/2 reached
on the spot, he was caught hold by the appellants no.3 Babulal and no.4
Bhulla Singh and appellant No.1 Mohan also caused a knife injury on the
hand of PW/2 Indar Singh. When the complainant Rajesh PW/1, the son of
the deceased Unkar Singh also tried to intervene, he was also stopped by the
appellant Bhagwan Singh. The FIR in the present case (Exhibit P/1) was
lodged by Rajesh PW/1 and the investigation ensued. After the charge sheet
was filed and the matter was committed, the learned Judge of the trial Court,
after recording the evidence has convicted the appellants as aforesaid, hence
this appeal.
3] Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned
3 Criminal Appeal No.1360/2007
judgement is liable to be set aside as the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as there is no FSL report on
record to suggest that the knife which has been recovered at the instance of
appellant No.1 Mohan is the knife which was used in the incident. It is further
submitted that so far as the other accused persons are concerned, there is no
allegation that they caused any injury either to the deceased Unkar Singh or to
Rajesh PW/1 or Indar Singh Pw/2 who tried to intervene in the matter. It is
submitted that the other accused persons i.e. appellants No.2, 3 and 4 have
been falsely implicated only because they happened to be the close relative of
appellant No.1 Mohan.
4] Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand supported
the impugned judgement and it is submitted that no interference in the
impugned judgement is made out as the learned Judge of the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence and has come to a conclusion regarding the
guilt of the appellants.
5] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6] From the record, it is found that the date of incident is 06/07/2006 at
around 10:00 O'clock in the night whereas the FIR has been lodged on
07/07/2006 at around 2:00 am. The names of all the four accused persons
have been mentioned by the complainant Rajesh PW/1. It is clearly
mentioned in the FIR that after the altercation with Unkar Singh, the father of
PW/1 Rajesh, appellant No.1 Mohan inflicted multiple knife injuries and the
other appellants caught hold on Rajesh PW/1 as also Indar Singh PW/2 when
4 Criminal Appeal No.1360/2007
they tried to intervene and to stop the appellant No.1 Mohan singh to cause
injuries to the deceased. This fact has been reiterated by PW/1 Rajesh in his
Court deposition and has remained unshaken in his cross examination.
7] PW/2 Indar Singh S/o Ambaram who is an injured witness has also
supported the case of the prosecution and he has also clearly stated about the
overt act of each of the accused persons and that A/1 Mohan Singh caused
injuries to Unkar Sihgh whereas appellants No.2, 3 and 4 caught hold of Indar
Singh and Rajesh when they tried to intervene. It is also found that there are
minor discrepancies in deposition of these witnesses viz a viz their statement
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. However, these omissions and
contradictions are minor in nature and do not reflect upon the actual incident.
8] PW/15 Dr. G.L. Sodi is the Doctor who had examined Pw/2 Indar
Singh found that he had incise wound over his middle finger 3.5 cm and he
had an injury on his little finger also.
9] PW/21 Dr. A.K. Lanjewar is the Doctor who performed the postmortem
of the deceased Unkar Singh and had found as many as 12 incise wounds over
the upper torso of the deceased and the cause of death is shown to be multiple
stab injuries, resulting in shock and excessive bleeding. He has also verified
that the injuries No.1, 2, 3, 6 and 10 can be caused by the said knife. He has
also denied that he has exaggerated the injuries suffered by the deceased.
10] PW/18 Umrao Singh is the panch witness of the seizure off knife from
the appellant No.1 Mohan Singh and has supported the case of the
prosecution.
5 Criminal Appeal No.1360/2007
11] On a careful examination of the material available on record as also the
impugned judgement, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions
raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants No.2, 3 and 4
had no role to play in commission of murder inasmuch as they did not cause
any injury to the deceased or to the injured witness Indar Singh. This Court
finds that the place of incident is in front of the house of the deceased which
is demonstrated by Naksha Moka (Exhibit P/7) proved by PW/9 Keshu. It is
also found that the time of the incident is around 10:00 O'clock in the night
wherein appellant No.1 Mohan Singh armed with a knife accompanied by
appellant No.2 Bhagwan Singh, appellant No.3 Babulal and appellant No.4
Bhullu Singh, after a brief altercation, inflicted as many as 12 incised injuries
to Unkar Singh without any provocation on his part. And when the son of the
deceased PW/1 Rajesh and his uncle's son PW/2 Indar Singh tried to
intervene in the dispute, the appellants No.2, 3 and 4 restrained them from
saving the deceased Unkar Singh from the brutal assault by appellant No.1
Mohan Singh. It clearly indicates that all of the appellants shared common
intention to commit murder of Unkar Singh, otherwise there was no reason
for the appellant no.2, 3 and 4 to stop the PW/1 Rajesh and PW/2 Indar Singh
from intervening in the matter who wanted to save the deceased Unkar singh..
In such facts and circumstances of the case, despite the fact that no injuries
have been inflicted by appellants No.2, 3 and 4 to the deceased or even the
injured, they cannot be given the benefit of doubt only on the ground that they
did not cause any injury to the deceased or to the injured PW/2 Indar Singh as
6 Criminal Appeal No.1360/2007
their common intention of murder of Unkar Singh is apparent from the face of
record.
12] In view of the same, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in
the impugned judgement which has been passed by the learned Judge of the
trial Court after duly appreciating the evidence on record.
Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(Vivek Rusia) (Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge Judge
krjoshi
Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI
Date: 2021.08.17 17:43:32 +05'30'
