Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Munna & Ors. on 5 August, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
1 CRA-1065-1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 5 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1065 of 1996
THE STATE OF M.P.
Versus
MUNNA & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Narayan Gupta - Government Advocate for the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the State being aggrieved of the judgment
dated 04th July, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Khurai, District Sagar in Sessions Case No.108 of 1993 acquitting four of
accused persons, namely, Hazari s/o Kanchhedilal Sen, Suttua alias
Chhotelal s/o Kanchhedilal Sen, Mst.Rajrani wife of Kanchhedilal Sen and
Mukesh s/o Barosi Sen. It is submitted that their acquittal is inappropriate.
2. Shri Gupta submits that as far as conviction of Munna s/o
Kanchhedi Lal and Kallu alias Rambabu s/o Kanchhedilal Sen is concerned
it is under section 326 of I.P.C., which too is incorrect inasmuch as the
conviction should have under section 302 of IPC as the injuries were
antemorterm and dangerous to life.
3. After hearing learned Government Advocate for the appellant and
2 CRA-1065-1996
going through the record it is evident that F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/29 at Page No.60)
was lodged by Alam Kurmi who was injured at the relevant point of time and
who later on died. It is submitted that in the F.I.R all the six accused persons
are named. Their specific acts are mentioned and accordingly acquittal of
four accused persons and conviction under section 326 of IPC of two
accused persons is not made out.
4. Pointing out towards MLC report proved by Dr.Madan Murari
Sharma (PW.16), it is submitted that in MLC (Exhibit-P/21A) the Doctor has
mentioned about 10 injuries caused by hard and blunt object. Dr.Madan
Murari Sharma (PW.16) has admitted in his cross-examination that at the
time when injured was brought to him for treatment he was conscious and
was speaking. At the time of examination he had not made any complaint.
This Doctor has admitted that there was no milk of 'Akaua' in the eyes of the
injured. Therefore, evidence of PW.16, alone is sufficient to clear the name
of Rajrani, to whom it was alleged that she bought leave of 'Akaua' to put
it's milk in the eyes of deceased-Alam Kurmi.
5. Dr.Vijay Sondhiya (PW.18) is the doctor who conducted
postmortem. PW.18-Dr.Vijay Sondhiya has certified the deceased to be dead.
It is submitted that once deceased died within few hours of sustaining
injuries then conviction should have been under section 302 of IPC and not
under 326 of IPC.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through
the record few facts need to be explained. One, F.I.R. though recorded by
R.P.Rawat, Station House Officer (PW.17) but fact of the matter is that Alam
3 CRA-1065-1996
was brought to the Police Station by Harprasad (PW.1).
7. Harprasad (PW.1) admitted that mother of Alam and Haprasad are
common but their father is different. He admitted in examination-in-chief
that at the time of deceased-Alam being taken to the Hospital he was
speaking very little. He had given two names to him i.e. of Munna and
Suttua. He had not given any other names. Thus, it is evident that when
injured was heavily bleeding, according to his own brother (PW.1), he was
not in a position to speak much and he had given only two names, then
recording of FIR after more than four hours of the incident actually taking
place, by which time there must have been excessive blood loss, giving of
six names appears to be unnatural and, therefore, learned trial Court
discarding FIR as a piece of dying declaration without there being any
corroboration. This treatment cannot to be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
8. Another star witness is Rajendra (PW.8). He claimed that he had
seen the incident from a close quarter. But he admitted in his cross-examined
that he had seen the incident from a distance of 100 feet. He had seen
Chowkidar and another person come running. They were also at a distance of
100 feet from the place of the incident. He admitted that he had left the place
of incident after leaving Alam Kurmi with Chowkiar. Thereafter, they had
given intimation to Harprasad (PW.1) who is brother of deceased-Alam
Kurmi.
9. This witness also admitted that deceased-Alam Kurmi is his
cousin brother as father of Alam is 'phufa' in relationship. In paragraph 4 he
has admitted that when he had seen the incident from a distance and prior to
4 CRA-1065-1996
that what had happened is not known to him. This witness in paragraph 8
admitted that he was knowing names of only two accused persons namely,
Mukesh and for another person, he deposed that name was not being re-
collected by him. He further admitted that he had only seen two persons
beating Alam Kurmi. He had not given the names of all the five accused
persons to the Police. He denied of giving statement as contained in Exhibit-
D/2 to the Police. There is no re-examination by the Public Prosecutor to
bring out the contradictions in his testimony.
10. Dr.Madam Murari Sharma (PW.16) and Dr.Vijay Sondhiya
(PW.18) both have admitted that the injuries were not on any of vital part of
the body and in normal course were not sufficient to cause death.
11. In view of these facts and also the fact which has come on record
that there was enmity between the families of deceased-Alam Kurmi and
accused persons, who are related to Kanchhedi Lal Sen on account of their
fields being in neighbourhood has not been ruled out. Thus, it is evident that
this is a case of over implication.
12. One of examples of false implication is the act attributed to
Rajrani which has been denied by PW.16. Thus, when there is an over
implication and there is corroborative evidence of PW.1 (Harprasad) & PW.8
(Rajendra) that there were only two persons who were actually involved in
beating of deceased-Alam, then acquittal of Hazari, Suttua, Mukesh and
Rajrani cannot be faulted with.
13. As far as conviction of Munna s/o Kanchhedi and Kalu @
Rambabu under section 326 of IPC and not under section 302 of IPC is
5 CRA-1065-1996
concerned, none of the circumstances mentioned under section 300 of IPC
are brought out by the prosecution. In fact, the case will fall under the
exception when culpable homicide is not a murder. Secondly, when
Dr.Madan Murari (PW.16) & Dr.Vijay Sondhiya (PW.18) both have
deposed that none of injuries were on vital part of the body and they were
not sufficient to cause death in normal course then for delay in giving
treatment to the injured, if there was an excessive blood loss which has
resulted in death then conviction could not have been recorded and rightly
not been recorded under section 302 IPC by the trial Court.
14. We do not find any substance in appeal filed by the State. The
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
