Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saligram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 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 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 529 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SALIGRAM S/O MANGILAL BAGRI, AGED ABOUT 32
Y E A R S , NEKPUR PIRPAT THANA SADALPUR
DISTT.DHAR/GRAM AAMLI THANA BETMA, DISTRICT-
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHARMILA SHARMA, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU.P.S.BETMA, DISTRICT-INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. VARSHA THAKUR, GOVT. ADVOCATE.)
This appeal coming on for judgment this day, Justice Vivek Rusia
passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Cr.P.C.
against judgement dated 18/11/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
and Special Judge (Electricity Act) District-Indore (M.P.) in S.T. No.208/2013
whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under sections 459, 302 and 324
of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, Life Imprisonment and
R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.3,000/- and Rs.500 respectively with
default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story in short is as under:- complainant Dinesh resident of
Aamli has lodged a report at police station Betma, District Indore that on
27.10.2012 at 9:30 p.m. he was sitting in a shop situated outside his house then
his 10 year old daughter Shivani came shouting that Shaligram is assaulting her
mother with knife. He immediately rushed inside the house and saw this
appellant assaulting his wife and she is lying in a pool of blood and unconscious
on the floor. Shaligram also caused injuries to Shivani and he tried to catch her
but she ran away. Lakhan Singh, Meharbaan Singh, Suresh Singh chased the
appellant but he ran away. He came back to his wife and saw she is bleeding
from various wounds and she was immediately taken to the Betma hospital
where she was declared dead. Treatment was given to Shivani and FIR was
lodged against the appellant under sections 459, 302 and 324 of the IPC. Police
started the investigation by drawing safina form in presence of five witnesses
naksha panchayatnama was prepared. Dead body was sent for postmortem.
The police collected the blood contains soil, broken bangles clothes of the
deceased etc. Post mortem was carried out at CHC Betma hospital and as per
the report Nirmala Bai died because of stab injuries and excessive bleeding.
After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the family members.
This appellant was arrested on 14.11.2013 in presence of witnesses on his
disclosure a knife was recovered from his house. His memorandum statement
under section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared before recovery. All the
seized articles were sent to the FSL for examination. After completing the
investigation charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate and from where the
case was committed to the sessions court on 25.02.2013. Charges were framed
against the appellant which he denied and pleaded for trial. In order to prove the
charges the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and got exhibited 26
documents. In defense, the appellant has not examined any witnesses. After
appreciating the evidence that came on record vide judgment dated 18.11.2014
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. Hence, this
criminal appeal before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has not
proved any motive behind the alleged crime by the appellant. He has falsely
been implicated in this case because of previous enmity. There are various
omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which are
ignored by the trial Court. Clothes of the appellant were not seized to establish
blood stains. Conviction is based on the sole testimony of P.W.-1 who is aged
about 10 years at the time of the incident therefore, conviction is bad in law and
is liable to be set-aside.
4. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State has
argued in support of the judgement by submitting that not only P.W.-1 all the
other witnesses have seen the appellant at the scene of crime and saw him
running from the house of the deceased. When the case is established with the
testimony of eye witnesses then motive loses its importance therefore,
conviction is not liable for interference
5. Prosecution has examined Shivani Suner (P.W.-1) who is daughter of
deceased and complainant. She is aged about 12 years at the time of deposition.
The court put certain questions to judge the ability to give evidence after
recording due satisfaction she was permitted to depose in the court. She has
specifically stated that appellant-Saligram entered in the house and started
assaulting her mother. She tried to save the mother and sustained the injuries on
three places. She shown the injuries to the court which are recorded in the
deposition. She has further deposed that father Dinesh, Suresh and Lakhan tried
to catch the appellant but somehow he ran away. Nothing has come out in the
cross-examination. Dinesh has also been examined as P.W.-4 and he has fully
supported the case of the prosecution. Independent Witnesses Lakhan (P.W.-5)
and Meharbaan Singh (P.W.-6) and Suresh (P.W.-8) saw the appellant
assaulting deceased by means of knife and saw him running from the house of
Dinesh therefore, trial Court has rightly believed the testimony of the P.W.-1.
So far, the motive is concerned when the case is fully established by the
testimony of eye witness then motive is not required to be established. Even
otherwise, appellant has not came up with the defense that as to why he has
falsely implicated in the case. So far the cause of death is concerned that the
findings has not been challenged by the appellant where the recovery of the
knife in which human blood was found. Seizure witnesses have also supported
the case of the prosecution.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the
impugned judgement passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, criminal appeal is
dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ajit
