Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chattan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 18 th OF JANUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1167 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
CHATTAN SINGH S/O SUMER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, R/O GRAM SINGHANA, POLICE STATION
MANAVAR, DISTT.DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHARMILA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION MANAVAR, DISTT.DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( BY SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, JUSTICE ANIL
VERMA passed the following:
ORDER
The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 3.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
Manavar District Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 130/2010, whereby the appellant
has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
IPC) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-
with usual default stipulation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
2/ As per prosecution story on 2.1.2010 at about 3.30 pm Shubham
Joshi (PW-1) lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) at police station Manavar by stating that
on 2.1.2010 at about 2.15 pm while eight years old deceased Abhay Singh was
sitting inside the room, at that time present appellant/accused Chattan Singh
came there armed with an axe and with an intention to kill the deceased, the
appellant Chattan Singh inflicted grievous injuries with axe over his face and
abdomen because accused/appellant was annoyed from Bhavani Singh who
was grand-father of deceased on the issue that he did not contact his marry.
ASI Bhagwan Jaat (PW-7) lodged FIR (Ex.P-2) and registered crime No.
7/2010 against the present appellant. Injured Abhay Singh was admitted in
District hospital Barwani, but during treatment Abhay Singh succumbed. After
conducting marg enquiry, offence under section 302 IPC has been registered.
Postmortem of deceased was conducted by Dr. Prakash Chandra Barfa (PW-4)
and found following injuries on the body of deceased:
(i) lacerated wound over left temporal region, size 10 cm x 3 cm
comminuted fracture of underlaying bone, brain tissue was also damaged;
(ii) incised wound over the right cheek, size 8 cm x 2 cm bony cut right
maxilla femur was fractured;
(iii) incised wound over right cheek angle of mouth to right temporal
region, bone deep, muscle cut;
(iv) incised wound over the chest at lower end of sternum size 1" x
1/2";
(v) incised wound over left hypochondrium, size 10 cm x 4 cm intestinal
loops comes out.
The cause of death was homicidal due to the head injuries, duration
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
within 24 hours.
3 / During the investigation, blood stain axe has been recovered from
possession of appellant and blood stain soil, some blood stain bed sheet,
sofacover and blood stain shirt of deceased were also seized by the
investigating officer and all the seized articles have been sent to chemical
examination to the FSL Indore.
4/ After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class Manavar who committed the case to the court
of Sessions Judge Dhar, later on case has transferred to the Additional Sessions
Judge Manavar, thereafter charges under Section 302 of IPC has been framed.
The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded complete innocence.
5/ In order to bring home the charges framed against the appellant,
prosecution examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses but defense did not
examine any witness. Trial court after appreciating the evidence available on
record convicted the appellant for offence under section 302 of IPC and
sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence the appellant has preferred this
appeal.
6/ Learned counsel for the appellant contended that he was not present
on the spot at the time of incident as he has been falsely implicated in this
offence. The prosecution has lodged the report on receipt of information of the
family members of deceased who are so called the eye witnesses of the incident
and also the relatives of present appellant and the said report has been lodged
with malicious intention against the appellant. The learned trial court erred in
appreciating the evidence available on record and not considered the material
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
contradictions and omissions brought on record. The prosecution has also
failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the appellant be
acquitted from the charges and judgment of conviction and sentence passed
against the appellant be set aside.
7/ Per contra learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned
judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and prays for dismissal of this
appeal by submitting that trial court after appreciating the entire evidence
available on record in detail came to the conclusion that deceased was
murdered by present appellant. The trial court has not committed any error in
holding that appellant is guilty of offence under section 302 of IPC, therefore,
present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8/ We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the whole record with due care.
9/ At this stage, it is not disputed that deceased died a homicidal death,
we may therefore, make a passing reference to the evidence of Dr. Prakash
Chandra (PW-4) who performed postmortem of deceased. The autopsy report
is Ex.P-7. A perusal of postmortem report reveals that deceased had sustained
five injuries on the vital part of the body i.e. head, cheek and chest and he died
a homicidal death due to the head injuries contributing with other injuries as a
result of multiple injuries caused by an axe. In absence of any challenge to the
autopsy report, we have no option but to accept the report and evidence of Dr.
Prakashchandra (PW-4) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.
10/ The prosecution has examined Shubham Joshi (PW-1) as a sole eye
witness. He categorically stated in his statement that at the time of incident he
was watching TV inside the home with the deceased, then the appellant came
there with an axe and inflicted several injuries to the deceased Abhaysingh over
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
his face, head and chest. When he made hue and cry, then mother of deceased
Sunita Bai, grand father Bhavani Singh and other persons came there and they
tried to caught hold the appellant but anyhow appellant was successful to fled
away from the spot. His statement is corroborated by the statement of mother
of deceased Sunitabai (PW-2) who reached on the spot just after hearing hue
and cry made by deceased. Sunitabai (PW-2) also proved that after reaching on
the spot she saw that appellant was standing there having an axe, when she tried
to caught hold the appellant, then he fled away from the spot. Both the
witnesses categorically stated regarding the motive that grand father of
deceased Bhawanisingh did not arrange marriage of present appellant due to
which he became annoyed and murdered the deceased.
11/ Although learned counsel for the appellant contended that statements
of these witnesses could not be relied upon on the basis of contradictions and
omissions. But it is the constraint view of the Hon'ble Apex court that the minor
discrepancies on the trivial matters not touching the core of case is never
considered to be fatal. The testimony of Shubham (PW-1) has been relied upon
because despite being subjected to elaborate cross examination, nothing could
not be elucidated as to discard his version. His testimony cannot be doubted
and it is not possible to hold that he is a plant witness. We do not find any
illegality or irregularity in assessing the statement of witnesses.
12/ After analyzing the evidence, it is found that there is nothing on
record which makes the presence of Shubham Joshi (PW-1) and Sunitasingh
(PW-2) doubtful on the spot, Shubham (PW-1) who has lodged the FIR
(Ex.P-1) at PS Manawar, which was registered by ASI Bhagwandas Jaat (PW-
7). It corroborates that PW-1 Shubhan had seen the incident and nothing has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
been produced by defense which makes the statements of Shubham (PW-1)
and Sunitabai (PW-2) untrustworthy.
13/ Inspector Kailash Bariya (PW-8) deposed that he arrested the
accused on 5.1.2010 and on the same day on the basis of disclosure statement
(Ex.P-5) made by accused, he has recovered blood stain axe vide seizure memo
(Ex.P-6). Yogendra @ Banti (PW-3) also corroborated the statement of
Investigating Officer by stating that an axe has been recovered from the house
of appellant before him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6).
14/ Further more, looking to the statements of witnesses and injuries
caused over head of the deceased corroborated by the statements of Dr.
Prakashchandra, it is also held that there is no delay in lodging the FIR.
However, looking to the unimpeachable testimony of eye witness and the
corroborative medical evidence, according to us, the trial court did not commit
any error in holding that the deceased has died on account of causing injuries
by appellant.
15/ Hence by this judgment, we hereby extend the stamp of approval to
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
16/ Resultantly, this appeal found to be devoid of merit and substance,
is hereby dismissed.
17/ Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment immediately to
the trial court alongwith the record of the trial court for necessary compliance.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
BDJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUVNESHWAR
DATT JOSHI
Signing time: 20-01-2023
19:39:49
