Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guman And Anr. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
CRA No.643/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 643 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
GUMAN AND ANR. S/O DEVLA BHIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM ADAT (TALAB
FALIYA),PS.ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
ANTRIYA @ ANTRIYA S/O DEVLA BHIL, AGED ABOUT 26
2. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICL. GRAM GADAT
(TALABFALIYA) P.S. ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS. REKHA SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANTS)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT. THROUGH POLICE
STATION ALIRAJPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, JUSTICE
VIVEK RUSIA passed the following:
JUDGMENT
(Dictated in open Court today i.e. on 12.9.2022)
The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 13.5.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.139/2009
- : 2 :-
CRA No.643/2010
whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under :
Appellant No.1 - Guman -
Offence U/s. Imprisonment. Fine Amount. In lieu of
default of
payment of
fine.
302 of the IPC. Life Imprisonment. 2,000/- One year RI.
Appellant No.2 - Antariya -
Offence U/s. Imprisonment. Fine Amount. In lieu of
default of
payment of
fine.
302/34 of the Life Imprisonment. 2,000/- One year RI.
IPC.
324 of the IPC. 2 years RI. - -
2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.1 - Guman
filed an application for withdrawal of this appeal and after the
dismissal of the criminal appeal he has been released from jail after
completing 14 years' incarceration.
3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant - Kelibai W/o.
Magan (deceased) lodged the report on 2.3.2008 at about 8.45 pm.
Disclosing that today near about 5 pm. she was sitting along with
her husband and children in the house, at that time Guman, son of
her elder brother-in-law (Jeth) came and took her husband for
consumption of 'Tadi' to his house. After some time she heard the
screamed voice of her husband ( Mare-Mare) then she along with
her son Rakesh (P.W.4), daughters - Sushila (P.W.6) & Guddi
(P.W.5), Premsingh (P.W.8) rushed to the house of the appellants
and saw that her elder brother-in-law - Devla ( acquitted accused)
caught hold Magan and Guman was armed with a gun, Antariya
- : 3 :-
CRA No.643/2010
was armed with 'Falia' and they all were telling to Magan that how
he alone is drawing the water from the Well belonging to their
ancestors. Complainant Kelibai objected to it and then accused
Antariya gave blows by means of 'Falia' on her face due to which
she sustained incised wounds and started bleeding. Magan tried to
save his wife Kelibai then Guman fired three gunshots on Magan
due to which Magan fell down and died there. Upon a cry made by
Kelibai, her younger brother-in-law Bhuwaria (P.W.3) and Idia
(P.W.2) also came there and thereafter, went to the Police Station
Alirajpur to lodge the report.
4. The police recorded the FIR and reached the spot. The
Station House Officer - Aishwarya Shastri (P.W.13) conducted the
investigation. Complainant - Kelibai was medically examined by
Dr. K.C. Gupta (P.W.12) who found 3 incised wounds. Thereafter, a
postmortem of Magan was carried out by Dr. R. Mandal (P.W.7)
who opined that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding from
the incised wound on his neck as well as gunshot injuries. These
two appellants and their father Devla were arrested and put to trial.
Appellant - Guman was charged u/s. 302 and 324/34 of the IPC;
appellant - Antariya was charged u/s. 302/34 and 324 of the IPC;
and accused Devla was charged u/s. 302/34 and 324/34 of the IPC.
They all denied the charges and pleaded their innocence. The
prosecution examined 14 witnesses to bring home the charges and
got exhibited 25 documents as Exh. P/1 to P/25. In defence,
appellants did not examine any witness but got exhibited the
statements of 4 witnesses viz. Idiya, Bhuchriya, Sushila and
Premsingh as Exh. D/1 to D/4.
5. After evaluating the evidence that has come on record, vide
- : 4 :-
CRA No.643/2010
impugned judgment learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the
accused Devla but convicted and sentenced the present appellants,
as stated above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, submits that the main gunshot injuries were caused by
Guman and Antariya was carrying 'Falia' and he said to have caused
the injuries, which were not fetal and for which he has wrongly
been convicted and sentenced u/s. 302/34 of the IPC, therefore, his
conviction u/s. 302 of the IPC with the aid of 34 is liable to be set
aside.
7. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal learned Govt. Advocate appearing for
the respondent/State has argued in support of the impugned
judgment by submitting that Guman and Antariya took the deceased
Magan to their house intending to kill. Antariya has caused the
incised wound on the neck using 'Falia' which is the main injury
that caused death, therefore, he has rightly been convicted u/s.
302/34 of the IPC and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and perused the record of the case.
8. The name of the deceased, date of commission of offence,
scene of the crime, injuries and cause of death and death is
homicidal has not been disputed and assailed by the learned
counsel, hence we need not re-appreciate the evidence on these
findings.
9. Kelibai (P.W.1), Idiya (P.W.2) and Bhuchriya (P.W.3) are the
eye-witnesses and they have seen appellants No.1 and 2 causing
- : 5 :-
CRA No.643/2010
injuries by means of the gun as well as 'Falia. Kelibai (P.W.1) is not
only eye witness of the crime but she herself suffered the injuries
caused by means of 'Falia'. Appellant No. 2: Antariya caused the
injuries to the deceased as well as Kelibai P.W.-1 . Learned counsel
for the appellant has read out the statement of Premsingh and
according to him, Guman was carrying 'Falia' and caused the
injuries to Magan.
10. Except for Premsingh (P.W.8), all other witnesses have
categorically stated that the 'Falia' was in the hands of Antariya
which has corroboration by medical evidence. Guman was carrying
a gun and Devla was carrying 'Falia', therefore, learned Sessions
Judge rightly disbelieved the statement of Premsingh (P.W.8). The
rest of the witnesses have duly supported the case of the
prosecution. We do not find any ground to interfere and the appeal
is liable to be dismissed. The appellant has completed 14 years of
the jail sentence, hence having parity with Guman he can also apply
to the jail authorities for his release as per law and the police of the
State Government.
Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Record be returned back to Trail court.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] [AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)]
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2022.09.13 19:19:20 +05'30'
