BAIJNATH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story is as under : On 19th October, 1990 Manohar, the deceased had beaten one Ramesh who had abused him a day earlier. On account of this incident, the three accused, viz., Baijnath, Devi Singh and Saligram had developed feelings of hostility towards him. At about 10.00 A.M. as Manohar was taking his bath at the village well known as Jhiriya Wala Kuan the three accused reached there armed with an axe, a knife and a sword respectively and attacked him killing him on the spot. Sahodra Bai-PW.4 who had gone to the well to draw water, saw the incident and ran away to inform Amol Singh-PW.3, the uncle of the deceased, as to what had transpired. Amol Singh-PW.3 then called Kotwal Kudau-PW.2 and asked him to report the matter to the police. An FIR was accordingly lodged at 12.00 noon. After registration of the case the Investigating Officer, Bhalenbdra Shekhar Tiwari- PW.19 reached the place of incident, made the necessary inquiries and sent the dead body for the post-mortem examination. He also recovered the brass pitcher and rope belonging to Sahodra Bai and a bucket and lota belonging to Manohar which were being used by him for taking a bath. An axe was also recovered at the instance of Baijnath, a knife at the instance of Devi Singh and a sword at the instance of Saligram. THE first two weapons viz., the axe and the knife were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, Sagar and were found to be stained with human blood. On the completion of investigation the accused were charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC and were brought to trial before the Court of Sessions. THE prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all including Sahodra Bai-PW.4. Dharmendra Singh-PW.5 and Ratan Singh-PW.6 as eye witnesses of the incident. In their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded false implication at the instance of Amol Singh. THEy also produced DW-1, the father of PW-5 Dharmendra Singh in support of their case in an attempt to disprove the presence of Dharmendra Singh and Ratan Singh at the time of incident.

(2.) THE trial court on an appreciation of the evidence held that the FIR had not been lodged at the police station but at the place of incident and that in any case the statement made by PW-2 Kotwal Kudrau could not be said to be an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. THE Court further held that the statements of the eye-witnesses did not inspire confidence as they contained material differences inter- se and as there appeared to be no apparent motive for the murder and an attempt had been made to rope in Saligram, created a suspicion about the veracity of the witness account. THE trial court accordingly acquitted the accused. THE State, thereupon filed an appeal against acquittal which was allowed qua Baij Nath and Devi Singh but dismissed qua Saligram. It is in these circumstances that the matter is before us at the instance of the two accused who have been convicted.

(3.) WE have given very careful consideration to the matter, more particularly, as we are dealing with a judgment of reversal. It is true that the trial court has giver certain findings with respect to the evidence which had led to the acquittal, bu1 we are of the opinion that some of the findings recorded by the trial court were unjustified and unrealistic. The broad principles dealing with appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter have been laid down in Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 1983 SC 753] and we respectfully reproduce the same :