THANEDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) dated 6-7-2000 reversing the verdict of acquittal recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Sessions Case No. 178/83. The accused herein was charged along with six others for committing murder of one Rajbahadur Singh. The appellant was charged under Section 148 and Section 302 IPC whereas others were charged under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. On appeal by the State under Section 378 Cr. P.C., the High Court granted leave to appeal only against the appellant. The High Court found the appellant guilty of murdering Rajbahadur Singh and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to the imprisonment. The High Court held that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant-accused had shot the deceased and the trial court committed serious error in acquitting him.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 18/19th May, 1982, the deceased Rajbahadur Singh and his father Bhola Singh (PW6) were sleeping at the threshing floor of their field (Khalihan). Rajbahadur (deceased) was sleeping on the heap of Arhar gram and his father was sleeping on a cot nearby. About mid-night time, seven persons including the appellant and his father came to the spot. On exhortation by one of the accused-Charan Singh, the appellant Thanedar fired at the deceased from close range. Rajbahadur Singh died instantaneously. The father of the deceased Bhola Singh who was witnessing the incident raised hue and cry after the accused persons left the scene. On hearing the sound of gun shot and the cries of Bhola Singh, his relation by name Surat Singh (PW8) who was sleeping at the nearby Khalihan woke up and saw five persons (other than the appellant) armed with weapons going towards the village Sikrodi. He then went to the Khalihan of his uncle and found Rajbahadur Singh lying dead. He came to know about the incident through Bhola Singh. Surat Singh went to the Police Station, Sihania which is 6 K.M. away in the morning and lodged the report. ASI, Rajaram (PW10) recorded the FIR at 8.45 A.M. The FIR is Ex. P 10. In the FIR, amongst others, the name of the appellant is shown as the actual assailant. There is also a recital in the FIR that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased 'last month' in connection with the ploughing of Khalihan and there was a fight between Rajbahadur and Charan Singh (one of the accused). The crime was registered. ASI PW10, who went to the spot found a gun shot wound on the chest of the deceased and he seized the dead body and prepared inquest panchanama (P6). An empty cartridge of 7mm bore which was found at the spot was seized under Ex. P 7. He sent the dead body for post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. D.S. Badukar (PW7) on the morning of 20-5-1982. He found a bullet entry injury measuring .7 _.7 cm in round shape on the right chest and an exit injury measuring 2.5cm _2.5cm. in round shape. The fourth and eight ribs were found broken, middle portion of left lung and inner part of the chest was destroyed with the resultant damage to heart. According to him, the death occurred on account of hemorrhage and shock caused by the said injuries attributable to the bullet fired by rifle. According to PW7, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW 10 prepared 'an abscondence memo' (Ex. P 13) pertaining to the accused on 19-5-1982. He arrested the accused appellant on 5-6-1982 and the other accused later on. He seized a 'mouse rifle' lying in Police Station Tighra in connection with crime No. 14/82 under Ex. P 20 and this, according to the prosecution was the weapon used by the accused. It is said to have been stolen from one Balmukund a few days before the occurrence.

(3.) PW 6, the father of the victim, is the eye witness. PW 8 and PW 4 who are close relations of the deceased were examined in order to show that the accused were seen near the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. The case of the defence broadly was that PW6 was not real eye witness and the FIR containing the names of accused was brought into existence two or three days after the incident. The trial court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 6, 8 and 4 and doubted the correctness of the prosecution version as regards the recording of FIR on the morning of 19th May. All the accused were acquitted. On appeal by the State which was confined to the appellant herein, the impugned judgment has been rendered by the High Court finding the appellant guilty under section 302 IPC.