Madhya Pradesh High Court
Baba Balakdas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COUR OF MADHY PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 599 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
BABA BALAKDAS S/O NANDURAM BHARTI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIEST, R/O: VILL. BHASAR, DISTT.
SITAMADI (BIHAR), AT PRESENT: VILL.
BHURIYA, P.S. ALOTE, DISTT. RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS.PURNIMA KANUNGO(L.A.) - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.
THROUGH POLICE STATION ALOTE, DISTT.
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MR. TARUN KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
____________________________________________________________
Reserved on : 24/01/2024
Pronounced on : 01/02/2024
____________________________________________________________
This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Justice Anil Verma pronounced the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the
impugned judgment dated 25.02.2012 passed by the III Additional
Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.156/2010, whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and has been sentenced to
undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default
stipulation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant was working as a
priest in the Hanuman Temple situated at village Thuriya. On 28.04.2011
at about 4:00 PM, when the complainant Kripal Singh went to the
temple, at that time, he heard that deceased Siddhu Singh was crying
"save me, Babaji will kill me by setting on fire." When complainant
reached on the spot, he found that deceased Siddhu Singh was burning
and appellant was standing there with a plastic cane of 5 litres in his
hand. Deceased in burning condition fell down on the spot. Thereafter,
Kripal Singh informed Narayan Singh, Shyam Singh and Hemraj by
mobile phone and all the three persons came on the spot, at that time,
appellant was crying that I killed Siddhu Singh and if anyone comes
close to me, then I will kill him. After that Inspector H.N. Mehar reached
on the spot and he lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) at the instance of
complainant Kripal Singh. He arrested the accused on the spot and the
dead body of the deceased was sent to the postmortem, which was
conducted by Dr. Prakash Vishnu Kulambikar (PW-11) at Civil Hospital,
Alote, who opined that the dead body of deceased was 98-99% ante-
mortem burnt and deceased died due to the inflammation and injuries are
antemortem in nature. Police seized a burnt cycle, a plastic cane, a match
box, some burnt ash, simple soil, 5 chilams, deceased's viscera,
photographs of the deceased and spot. The deceased's articles were sent
to the FSL, Sagar for its chemical examination and kerosene oil was
found on some of the seized articles.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
before the JMFC Alote, who has committed the case to the Court of
Sessions and later on case has been transferred to the III Additional
Sessions Judge, Ratlam for trial. Thereafter, trial Court on the basis of
the allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charge under Section
302 of IPC against the present appellant. Appellant abjured his guilt
and pleaded complete innocence. In order to bring home the charge, the
prosecution has examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, while
the defence did not examine any witness. The trial Court after
appreciating the entire evidence available on record, convicted and
sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above. Being aggrieved by
the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is neither legal nor proper
nor correct. The trial Court was wrong in believing the prosecution
witnesses and discarding the defence version and drawing unwarranted
inferences. There are material contradictions and omissions in the
statement of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt of the appellant without reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays that the
appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside and appellant be acquitted
from all the charges.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / State
opposes the prayer 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 the deceased was murdered by the
appellant, therefore, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length
and perused the entire record of the trial Court with due care.
7. In the instant case, first of all, it is to be considered as to
whether death of the deceased is homicidal in nature or not.
8. Dr. Prakash Vishnu Kulambikar (PW-11), who has
performed the postmortem of the deceased. According to him, rigor
mortis was present over the body of the deceased and body of the
deceased was 98-99% burned, which was categorized as first class. A
smell of kerosene oil was oozing out from the skull and remaining
clothes. As per his opinion, an extensive first degree burn of
approximately 98-99%, which was antemortem in nature showed signs
of inflammation within 12 to 18 hours of the examination. The death of
deceased was found homicidal in nature.
9. Although counsel for the appellant raised the defence that
deceased was a mentally disabled person and used to consume drugs by
means of chilam, therefore, deceased committed suicide in an
intoxicated condition by setting himself on fire, but Kripal Singh (PW-
1), Arjun Singh (PW-2) and Narayan Singh (PW-3) all of them have
categorically denied that the deceased was a mentally retarded person or
habitual of any intoxication. Nothing has been found on the autopsy
report of the deceased that he consumed any type of drugs just prior to
the incident. Defence did not produce any medical report regarding the
unfit medical status of the decease, therefore, for want of evidence,
appellant failed to prove that the deceased was a mentally retarded
person or habitual of any intoxication of drugs. Kripal Singh (PW-1) is
an eyewitness and categorically denied that deceased committed suicide
by pouring kerosene oil upon him and setting him on fire. Even the
appellant did not make any such defence in his statement under Section
3(1)(5) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court, therefore, the appellant failed to
prove that death of the deceased was suicidal.
10. On the basis of statement of Dr. Prakash Vishnu Kulambikar
(PW-11) and the postmortem report (Ex.P-26) prosecution has
successfully proved that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
11. Prosecution has examined Kripal Singh (PW-1) as a sole eye
witness categorically stated in his deposition that at the time of incident,
deceased Siddu Singh was sleeping under a tree nearby the temple.
When he went to the temple, suddenly he heard some noise, then he
turned around to see that Siddu Singh was burning and accused was
standing there with a cane of kerosene oil in his hand and the appellant
poured kerosene oil upon the deceased Siddu Singh and sat nearby the
temple with a cane of kerosene oil and he was stopping everyone to
come close to him. Thereafter, Siddu Singh fell down on the field. Kripal
Singh informed Shyam Singh by mobile phone and just after 10 minutes,
Shyam Singh, Narayan singh and Hemraj rushed there and after half an
hour police also reached on the spot. Even at that time, appellant was
sitting there with a cane of kerosene oil, then police caught hold him. He
has provided information to the police regarding the incident and Dehati
Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and premature death information (Ex.P-2) have been
written.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is
material contradictions and omissions in the statement of Kripal Singh
(PW-1), his police statement (Ex.D-1) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1),
therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. Although there is some
contradictions have been found in the statement of Kripal Singh with his
earlier statement, but these contradictions are trivial in nature and same
is neither material nor sufficient to wholly discard testimony of the
Kripal Singh. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs.
Pullugummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy reported in (2018) 7 SCC
623 has held as under:
"Discrepancies which do not shake the credibility
of the witnesses and the basic version of the
prosecution case to be discarded. If the evidence of
the witnesses as a whole contains the ring of truth,
the evidence cannot be doubted."
13. Apart from the above, the statement of Kripal Singh is well
supported by the Arjun Singh (PW-2), who also deposed that he saw the
appellant, who was sitting nearby the Temple with a cane of kerosene oil
and the same has been deposed by the Narayan Singh (PW-3). All these
witnesses are independent witnesses and they are not related to the
deceased or any other party. Despite being subjected to elaborate cross
examination, nothing would be elucidated as to discard their version.
Their testimony cannot be doubted and it is not possible to hold that they
are planted witnesses, therefore, we do not find any illegality or any
irregularity in any assessing the statement of all these witnesses.
14. After analyzing the evidence, it is found that there is nothing
available on record, which makes the presence of Kripal Singh (PW-1),
Arjun Singh (PW-2) and Narayan Singh (PW-3) doubtful on the spot.
Kripal Singh, who lodged the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) and premature
death information (Ex.P-2), which were registered by the S.H.O. H.N.
Mehar (PW-9), who corroborates that the Kripal Singh (PW-1) seen the
whole incident and nothing has been produced by the defence, which
makes the statement of all theses witnesses untrustworthy.
15. S.H.O. H.N. Mehar (PW-9) deposed that he arrested the
accused through the seizure memo (Ex.P-19) and recovered burnt cycle,
burnt stick, 5 litres plastic cane, a match box, 5 chilams, simple soil and
kerosene oil through the seizure memo (Ex.P-7). His statement is well
supported by Shambhu Singh (PW-7), who clicked some photographs
(Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-15) from the spot. Cane of the kerosene oil was found
in the possession of appellant at the time of incident. It is strong
circumstances against him.
16. Furthermore, looking to the statement of witnesses, seizure
memo, Dehati Nalishi and the medical evidence available on record, it is
also held that there is no delay in lodging the Dehati Nalishi. Therefore,
looking to the unimpeachable testimony of eye witness Kripal Singh and
the corroborative evidence, according to us, trial Court did not commit
any error in holding that the appellant has murdered the deceased.
17. Hence, by this judgment, we hereby extend the stamp of
approval to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the trial Court.
18. Resultantly, this appeal is found to be devoid of merit and
substance, the same is hereby dismissed.
19. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of both the
trial Court be sent back to the concerned Court for information and
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE J U D G E
Anushree
