Raghuraj Singh Alias Puttu Singh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3736 MP

                                     1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
                              CRA No. 4857 of 2021
      (RAGHURAJ SINGH ALIAS PUTTU SINGH BHADORIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 16-03-2022
      Shri Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Rajiv Upadhayay, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

Heard on I.A. No.29147/2021, an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant-Raghuraj Singh @ Puttu Singh Bhadoriya is the husband of the deceased-Manjulata @ Guddan.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 12th August, 2021 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No.100/2018.

As per prosecution story, an information was received on 20/08/2018 by Sub Inspector B.S. Parihar (PW-10) that a lady has suffered homicidal death due to gun shot injury in Sameer Nagar, Bhind. Based whereupon, the police party reached at the place of the incident and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-1) was registered at the instance of complaint Shivpal Singh (PW-1). He has stated that while he was in the

village, he was told that his nephew Raghuraj Singh present appellant has murdered his wife-deceased with gun shot injury therefore, no sooner he received the information, he had gone to the spot of incident. It was further stated that the present appellant Raghuraj Singh lived in a rented house at Sameer Nagar, Bhind alongwith his wife Manjulata and Children. It is further alleged that the gun shot injury suffered by the deceased-Manjulata was due to gun shot fired from the licenced gun of the appellant. It further surfaced that after commission of crime, appellant was not found on the spot and had gone away with his children. Thereafter, a case was registered vide Crime No.85/2018 under Section 302 of IPC and the case was taken up for investigation. From the place of incident empty cartridges as well as pellets were recovered. The double barrel gun with live cartridges was seized from the kitchen of the house of the appellant at his village Roopsahay ka pura. Other evidences were also collected. Accordingly, seizure memo was prepared. After submission of final report, the case was committed to

the Sessions Court for trial. The seized gun, live cartridges, empty cartridges, part of the bullets, palettes of the bullets found on the body of the deceased were sent for forensic science laboratory for expert report by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar by official communication with covering letter No.477 dated 05/05/2018, as

well discussed in paragraph 33 of the judgment of the trial Court. Thereafter, the report dt.26.06.2018 of the expert was submitted by the Director State Judicial Forensic Laborator, Sagar.

The Sessions Court upon critical evaluation of the evidence placed on record particularly, the government scientific expert report as aforesaid has reached the conclusion that the gun shot injury suffered by the deceased Manjulata was fired from the double barrel gun seized from the possession of the appellant and accordingly, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant firstly submits that the report submitted to the Court under Section 293 of CPC was not exhibited and the accused was not afforded any opportunity to controvert the same. Therefore, the said document could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction of the appellant. Hence, prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Dutt Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 9 SCC 286 and by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in the case of Indra Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.805/2013 decided on 03/05/2017 to bolster his submissions. Secondly, he submits that the seizure witnesses of the double barrel gun since have turned hostile, therefore, the seizure itself gives rise to suspicion and the same should have been ignored for the benefit of the appellant.

Even otherwise, the seizure was not proper, as there was no connecting evidence that the gun shot injury suffered by the deceased was fired from the gun found from the possession of the appellant. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are not only misconceived but also miserably

misdirected. Further elaborating his submission, learned counsel submits that Section 293(1) of Cr.P.C impeccably makes its clear that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

The report sent by the Director State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar is one of the authorities as specified under clause (e) of sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. As such, the report submitted by the government scientific expert can

always be used as evidence with no further qualification.

That apart, under sub-section (2) of section 293 of Cr.P.C., a discretion is vested with the Court that it may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.

Under such circumstances, if the Sessions Court having accepted the report under sub-section (1) of Cr.P.C from an authority as specified under clause (e) of sub-section (4) of Cr.P.C, no exception could be taken against use of the report by the Sessions Court while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the premise that the empty cartridges found on the spot and part of the bullets, palletes of the bullets found on the body of the deceased was fired from the double barrel gun seized from possession of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as a matter of fact, the deceased Kusumlata was the wife of the appellant and was living with him with children in a rented house at Sameer Nagar, Bhind. Therefore, heavy burden lied upon the appellant to explain the circumstances, which led to her homicidal death by gun shot injury. There is no explanation except that the appellant was not on the spot. Besides that, such explanation can hardly be said to be an explanation in the criminal jurisprudence. In fact, such bald statement is in despair and is more of frustration than of substance. With the aforesaid, learned counsel submits it is not the fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Heard.

Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced, it is expedient to

observe that scheme incorporated under Section 293 of Cr.P.C is self-contained in the section itself. It provides for report of the government scientific expert and applicability of section is with reference to the authorities specified under sub- section (4) of Section 293 of Cr.P.C. Undisputedly, the Director State Forensic Science Laboratory falls in clause (e) of sub-section (4) of Section 293 of Cr.P.C.

Further sub-section (1) of Section 293 of Cr.PC is as clear as noon in the day. The report having been submitted by such government scientific expert can be used by the Court as an evidence with no further qualification. Indeed, as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent/State that the Court in its discretion may examine an expert as to the subject-matter of the report. As such, the Court is not obliged to summon an expert as to the subject-matter of its report.

That apart, there is also substantial force in the submissions of counsel for the respondent/State that appellant being the husband of the deceased-Kusumlata and undisputedly residing with the deceased and children had not offered any plausible explanation regarding the cause of death.

Burden lies heavily upon the appellant to given a plausible explanation about the cause of death of the deceased having died homicidal death with the gun shot injury. The explanation, as aforesaid, offered by the appellant, has rightly not been accepted by the trial Court.

Consequently, we are of the view that no case is made out for suspension of sentence of the appellant.

At this stage, it is expedient to observe that observations on facts by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of I.A.No.29147/2021 and shall have no bearing on the merits of the appeal.

I.A. No.29147/2021 is dismissed.

     (ROHIT ARYA)                                          (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
        JUDGE                                                       JUDGE

vc

 VARSHA
 CHATURVEDI
 2022.03.21
 14:51:29 +05'30'