Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sajan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Anil Verma
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 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1261 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
SAJAN SINGH S/O ONKAR BHILALA, AGED ABOUT 33
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE KAKAD KUA,
TANDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHARMILA SHARMA-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU.P.S.TANDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY SHRI KAMAL KUMAR TIWARI-ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, Justice Vivek Rusia passed
the following:
ORDER
The appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 12.07.2016 passed in Session Trial
No.38/2016 by Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi, District Dhar whereby he
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.
25,000/- with default stipulation.
Facts of the case ;-
[2] On 29.09.2015 at about 17:00, the complainant Jogadiya was
standing infront of his house alongwith neighbours Ramesh and Bhavsingh. His
aunt Rajbai was also stand alongwith them. His uncle's son Sajan Singh came
there wielding stick in his hand and said Rajbai that because her, his daughter
Sena died by drowning in the well and today he would kill her. He gave two-
three blows by stick on the had of Rajbai thus she fell down. The appellant fled
away from the spot. The complainant checked and found that Rajbai died. He
called his uncle Idu Bhilala and Patel Jalam Singh and went to Police Station
Tanda for lodging an FIR which was registered at Crime No.143/2015. The
Investigation Officer reached to the spot, drew spot map at the instance of
Jogadiya. The statement of witnesses were recorded. Lash Panchnama was
prepared. In order to ascertain the reasons for death, dead body was sent for
postmortem from where report (Ex.P/11) was received according to which the
death was homicidal. The Investigation Officer collected the blood stain cloth,
plain soil and blood stain soil. On 06.10.2015, the appellant was arrested vide
Ex.P/7 and on his disclosure, the stick used for committing the offence seized
vide memo Ex.P/8. All the seized article were sent for FSL from where receipt
Ex.P/18 was received. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed
to the JMFC from it was committed to the Session Court.
[3] The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. The prosecution
examine 13 witnesses to establish the charges.
[4] The PW-1 Jogadiya has supported the case of the prosecution,
however he has not disclosed the reason as to why the appellant came there and
assaulted the deceased. Likewise Edu (PW-2) has also supported the case of
prosecution. Ramesh (PW-3) only saw the deceased lying dead, he was
informed by Jogadiya (PW-1) about the overt act of appellant but he was not
on the spot. Dhanita (PW-8) daughter of Rajbai is hearsay witnesses, who was
not there at the time of incident. Balu (PW-9) also a hearsay witnesses.
Bhavsingh (PW-4) saw the Sajan Singh going from the spot and saw the Rajbai
bleeding from the head and nose. Raksingh (PW-5) is a seizure witness in
whose presence appellant was arrested and stick was recovered. The Jalam
Singh (PW-6) is hearsay witness. Dr. Saukat Ali (PW-7) has conducted the
autopsy and according to him, the deceased died due to head injury. The
Investigation Officer, Manju Malviya (PW-11) has conducted the investigation.
On the basis of aforesaid evidence that came on record, this appellant has been
convicted and sentence as stated above.
[5] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not assailing the
findings recorded by the Trial Court and prays that this offence be altered from
under Section 302 of IPC to under Section 302 (Part -II) of IPC as the
appellant had no intention to kill the deceased. He was under impression that his
daughter died by drowning in the well and due to anger he assaulted the
deceased. He is not habitual criminal. He is in jail since 06.10.2015 almost 9
years, therefore sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
[6] Learned Government Advocate opposes the aforesaid prayer by
submitting that this appellant gave three blows to the deceased on the vital part,
thus he came there with intention to kill the deceased, therefore, he has rightly
been convicted under Section 302 of IPC.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
[7) We are of the considered opinion that the appellant was under
impression that his daughter died because of the deceased, therefore he was
annoyed with the deceased. In the FIR, there was an allegation that he assaulted
the deceased with an intention to kill the deceased but in evidence non of
witnesses have said that the appellant came on the spot with intention to kill the
deceased. Except Jogadiya and Idu, rest of witnesses are hearsay witness. The
appellant did not cause the injury with intention to kill the deceased. Had he
intention to kill the deceased, he would have used the lethal weapon, therefore
the prayer made by the appellant is liable to be accepted.
[8] In view of above, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
conviction is altered from under Section 302 of IPC to 304 (Part-II) and
sentence is reduced Life Imprisonment to 10 years by maintaining the fine
amount.
Let copy of this judgment be sent to Court concerned alongwith record.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
