Rewaram @ Halke Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2925 MP

                                                                         1                              CRA-1691-2016
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                          CRA-1691-2016
                                              (REWARAM @ HALKE KEWAT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       27
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 02-07-2021
                                             Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                             Per : Rajeev Kumar Dubey,J.

Shri M.K. Lodhi, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned G.A. for the respondent/State. Heard on IA.No.11399/2020, which is an application under Section

389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellants Rewaram @ Halke Kewat & Dhansingh.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Raisen in Special S.T.No. 130/2015 whereby learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Raisen found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no eye

witness of the incident and there is no direct evidence on record to prove the fact that appellants murdered deceased Mukesh. Learned trial court only on the basis of statements of Raju (PW-1), Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) found appellants guilty for the aforesaid offense. While they are the interested witnesses as Raju (PW-1) and Tularam (PW-3) are the brothers of the deceased and Deepak (PW-2) was the neighbour of the deceased and they had enmity with the appellants. Though, they deposed that on receiving the information regarding the incident when they reached the spot, they found deceased Mukesh lying on the spot in an injured state and Mukesh told them that in the incident appellant No.2 Dhansing caught hold of his hand and appellant No.1 Rewaram assaulted him with the knife, due to which he Signature Not Verified SAN sustained injuries, but in this regard, there are many contradictions and

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.08 16:59:20 IST 2 CRA-1691-2016 omissions in their statements. Raju (PW-1) deposed that when he was at his field somebody informed him that appellants Rewaram & Dhansing were assaulting his brother Mukesh. On that, he went to the spot, where he found Mukesh lying there in an injured state. Likewise, Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) in their statements deposed that at the time of the incident, they were at the shop located at village Pada and on receiving information regarding the

incident they reached the spot, where they found Mukesh lying in an injured state. But they did not disclose as to who informed them about the incident. Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) also did not disclose the name of the person, whose shop they were standing.

In the FIR (Ex.P/2) lodged by Raju (PW-1), it is not mentioned that Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) were also present on the spot when deceased Mukesh narrated about the incident to him, so the statement of Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) becomes doubtful. Dr. H.N. Mandre (PW-9) who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Mukesh deposed that he found as many as 12 injuries on the body of Mukesh and also admitted in his cross-examination that a person, who sustains such injuries would become unconscious soon after receiving such injuries. While Raju (PW-1), Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) deposed that after receiving information regarding the incident when they reached the spot, Mukesh was conscious and he narrated the incident to them. Raju (PW-1) admitted in his cross-examination that the distance between his field, where he was at the time of the incident and the spot is 3 km.

He further submitted that it is also alleged that Police seized blood- stained clothes and one knife from the possession of appellant No.1 Rewaram, but in this regard, independent witnesses of seizure memo Bhujwal (PW-4) and Bhajan (PW-5) did not corroborate the prosecution story. Even otherwise, in the FSL report, only what is mentioned is that bloodstains were found on the clothes and knife allegedly seized by the police at the instance of appellant No.1 Rewaram, but in the report, it is not mentioned that the group Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.08 16:59:20 IST 3 CRA-1691-2016 of the blood found on the clothes of appellant matched with that of the deceased. So only on that basis, it cannot be said that appellants murdered the deceased. Learned trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly, wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offenses. Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellants on bail since the hearing of this appeal will take time.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Mukesh committed rape with the wife of appellant no.1 Rewaram, due to which appellant no.1 Rewaram had enmity with Mukesh, the enmity is a double-edged weapon, it can be a motive for appellant no.1 Rewaram to murder the deceased Mukesh and only on the basis that Raju (PW-1) and

Tularam (PW-3) had enmity with the appellant no.1 Rewaram, their statements cannot be discarded. Raju (PW-1), Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) in their statements clearly deposed that soon after the incident they reached the spot, where Mukesh who was in an injured state informed them that in the incident appellant No.2 Dhansingh caught hold of his hands and appellant No.1 Rewaram assaulted him with a knife, due to which he sustained injuries. In this regard, there is no contradiction and omission in their statements. Police also seized blood-stained clothes and a knife at the instance of appellant no.1 Rewaram and in the FSL report, it is mentioned that human blood was found on these articles. Appellant No.1 Rewaram did not explain how human blood was found on these articles, which clearly shows that the appellants murdered Mukesh, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants.

As far as appellant no.1 Rewaram is concerned, Raju (PW-1), Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) clearly deposed that when they reached the spot, they saw Mukesh lying in an injured state on the spot and he told them that appellant No.2 Dhansing caught hold of him and appellant No.1 Rewaram assaulted him by knife, due to which he sustained injuries. In this regard, their statements also corroborated by the statement of Dr. H.N. Mandre (PW-9), Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.08 16:59:20 IST 4 CRA-1691-2016 who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Mukesh. He deposed that he found as many as 12 injuries on the body of deceased Mukesh caused by a hard and sharp object. Police also seized blood-stained clothes and knife from the possession of appellant no.1 Rewaram and in the FSL report also it is mentioned that human blood was found on the clothes and knife seized by the police at the instance of appellant no.1 Rewaram. Appellant no.1 Rewaran did not give any explanation regarding the human bloodstains on his shirt. Even in the arrest memo (Ex.P-9) of appellant No.1 Rewaram, it is mentioned that one injury was found on his right thigh and Investigation Officer Dharmendra Singh Thakur (PW-6) also deposed in his cross-examination that he found one injury on his right thigh, so this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence of appellant no.1 Rewaram.

As far as appellant no.2 Dhansingh is concerned, there is no allegation against appellant no.2 Dhansingh that in the incident he assaulted the deceased or inflicted any injury to deceased Mukesh. The only allegation against appellant no.2 Dhansingh is that at the time of the incident, he caught hold of the hands of the deceased Mukesh. In this regard also except the oral dying declaration of the deceased Mukesh, there is no other evidence on record to connect appellant no.2 Dhansingh with the crime. There is no other evidence on record that corroborates the statement of Raju (PW-1), Deepak (PW-2) and Tularam (PW-3) regarding the involvement of appellant no.2 Dhansingh with the crime.

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant no.2 Dhansingh is in custody since the date of judgment and the hearing of this appeal will take time, the IA no.11399/2020 is partly allowed and it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence passed against appellant no.2 Dhansingh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2021.07.08 16:59:20 IST 5 CRA-1691-2016 7/10/2021 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.

C.C. as per rules.

List for final hearing in due course.

                                          (NANDITA DUBEY)                                (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
                                              JUDGE                                                 JUDGE


                                       mn(m/-)




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA
Date: 2021.07.08 16:59:20 IST