JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in two criminal appeals. The prosecution case in this appeal as unfolded flounders on the bedrock of family feuds, bloodshed and murder. Angooribai, daughter-in-law of Saligram (PW-1) is stated to be living with Vidyaram (appellant No. 2) as his mistress. Therefore, it is alleged that PW-1 Saligram's family had enmity against all the accused. One Ramcharan, brother of accused Vidyaram is stated to have been murdered in which the complainant Saligram, his deceased son Bachchoo Lal, his nephew, Sultan Singh and his brother Adi Ram who are other witnesses in this case were accused and Vidyaram deposed in that case against them. Except for Bachchoo Lal, who was sentenced to life imprisonment, all the other accused were acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal the High Court acquitted him also. It is stated that it is in this background that murder of Bachchoo Lal took place to avenge the death of Ramcharan.

(2.) On 12-5-1981 at about 11 a.m. PW-1 Saligram along with his son Bachchoo Lal was proceeding on bicycle to village Hingawali to attend a feast in connection with marriage ceremony at Ganguaram's residence. Bachchoo Lal was riding the cycle with his father Saligram also perching thereon. When they reached the road connecting village Navali and Laljit Ka Pura, they got down, as there was sand on the road. Bachchoo Lal was pushing the cycle while Saligram was coming behind him about 30-40 paces away, accused Jagdish armed with .12 bore Katta (country made pistol) and axe and Vidyaram with a Mouser gun and Uttam nephew of Vidyaram's sister son was armed with 'Farsa.' Jagdish fired at Bachchoo Lal with .12 bore Katta which hit him on the left thigh then Uttam gave him 'Farsa' blow on his head. Jagdish fired second time with Katta and Vidyaram also fired with his Mouser gun. Bachchoo Lal became injured and fell down on the ground. PW-1 Saligram raised a loud cry in panic that his son has been murdered. Then Vidyaram ran towards him with the gun but he somehow escaped and ran back 10 paces behind. From there he saw that all the three accused attacked Bachchoo Lal with 'Farsa' and axe and when Bachchoo Lal died, they ran away towards Geelapura. PW-1 went near Bachchoo Lal and found that he had succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station Ambah and lodged a complaint which was registered at 1.30 p.m. by PW-10 Jaikaran Singh who proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared a Panchnama, recovered blood stained earth, a six inch long handle of the axe (Article 7) from the spot and an empty cartridge of .12 bore gun and an empty round of .315 bore (Article 14) and prepared appropriate memo. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination on 13-5-1981. The Doctor conducted autopsy on the body and found as many as 15 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. On 9-6-1981 accused Jagdish and Vidyaram were arrested by PW-9 Ram Sunder Tiwari and at his instance blood stained axe (Article 9) was recovered from his house and it was sent for chemical examination which, however, proved that it did not contain any blood stains. Vidyaram made a disclosure about a licence of Mouser gun (Article 12) and missed cartridge and licence of the Mouser gun and produced it before the Policeman Babu Singh, who was not examined before trial Court and Ram Gopal denied having seen anything produced by Vidyaram in the Police Station. All the three accused were charge sheeted under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were tried by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was that the witnesses have given false evidence because of their enmity with Vidyaram and further pleaded that they were away to attend the marriage of their relative at village Mahawakepura in U.P., were not present at the time of the occurrence and are falsely implicated. The trial Court after recording the evidence and the statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C., came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against Vidyaram and Jagdish and hence acquitted them while convicting Uttam under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment.

(3.) The trial Court on a critical analysis of the evidence of eye witness PW-1 found that there were discrepancies, contradictions and omissions of material parts of evidence. The trial court noticed (1) that the statement of PW-1 that no one other than Adi Ram was present at the scene of occurrence is an improvement made over what is stated in the FIR that many people have gathered at the scene of occurrence after his son's death; (2) that he and his son Bachchoo Lal at Laljitpura when took water to quench their thirst did not mention the presence of Adi Ram or his taking water in FIR or in statement to police. This aspect was disbelieved by the trial Court because in its view the same was not either natural or probable because what has been stated by him before the court was for first time which was not revealed in the statement made before the police; (3) that the accused Jagdish had hit his son Bachchoo Lal with axe 4-5 times on the head and as a result of which the blade of the axe had entered into his head and Vidyaram had taken out the blade and hit the deceased on his neck cannot be relied upon because the complainant had made no mention of it either in the FIR or in his statement to the Police. (4) that the recovery of the blade of the axe said to have been used in the incident at the instance of the accused Jagdish is doubtful as on chemical examination it was found that this blade of axe did not have any blood stains. The length of the blade of the axe said to have been recovered from deceased is 9 cms and the length of the injuries caused by the said blade could not have been caused by the same was admitted by the Doctor while deposing before the Court. No independent witness has been examined for the said recovery of the axe. The trial Court also did not believe the recovery of .12 bore Katta from Jagdish as it was not sent for ballastic examination. The High Court, however, took a contrary view as in its view the discrepancies, contradictions and omissions noticed by the trial Court are not material and, therefore, convicted the two accused who are in appeal before us in Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 1998. The other accused Uttam is in appeal which is against affirmation of his conviction and sentence by the trial Court.