STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BISRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 556 of 1983 (Bisoucha v. Bisram and three others) which has been filed by the aggrieved party against the acquittal. This appeal by the State Government is against the acquittal of four respondents tried on charge under section 302 I.P.C. alternatively under sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) IT appears that in village Cheeori within the jurisdiction of police station Bemetra there were two rival parties. The respondents belong to one group while deceased Beduram, a medical practitioner belonged to the other. On 23.11.1982 respondent Bisram requested Beduram to go to his house to treat his children. Beduram was on his way to Bisram's house but before he could reach that house, all the respondents are said to have attacked him with knives and lathis as a consequence of which he received serious injuries. It is said that Beduram then took resque in the house of Bhanupratap (P.W. 4), at a distance of about 360 feet from the spot of incident. Bhanupratap is alleged to have taken Beduram to his (Beduram's) house in the injured condition but in senses. He was then shifted to Bemetra hospital but died on the way. It is the case of the prosecution that at both the places, i.e. in the house of Bhanupratap as also in his own house Beduram disclosed that all the accused persons (respondents) beat him with lathis and knives. At 10.40 A.M. i.e. about 21/2 hours after the incident Kheduram (P.W. 1), the brother of the deceased Beduram lodged the first information report (Ex. P -1) mentioning the names of all the respondents accused as assailants. During investigation a knife was seized from Bisram after he was taken into custody vide Ex. P -13. This knife was found to be stained with blood vide Ex. P -18, the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory Bisram's Lungi and sleepers were also seized and they were also found to be stained with blood. Blood stained earth was seized from the spot of incidence vide Ex. P -3. Post -mortem examination on the body of the deceased was performed by Dr. A.K. Dave, A.S. (P.W. 8) who found multiple knife injuries on the person of the deceased. His report is Ex. P.6. Out of the statements of the witnesses recorded during Investigation, Firtu (P.W. 2) and Ramkumar @ Kumar (P.W. 3) figured eye -witnesses After trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the respondents principally because of enmity between the two parties and some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. The testimony of two eye -witnesses was discarded also because they did not tell the homes of the assailants to the deceased's brother Kheduram. Yet another criticism against the prosecution by the learned Sessions Judge is that one Chatru named in the first information report was not examined.

(3.) COMING now to accused Bisram, we find that there is enough evidence against him. The two witnesses Firtu (P.W. 2) and Ramkumar (P.W. 3) stated in court that Bisram assaulted deceased Beduram with knife. Bedurm's postmortem report Ex. P -6 shows knife injuries on his person. To this extent the version of the eye' witnesses is well supported by medical evidence. The previous enmity affords motive. Bisram was arrested the next day of the incident and from him and on his information vide Ex. P -12 a blood stained knife was seized from a Badi near his house. Clothes seized from his person were also found stained with blood. Bhanupratap (P.W.4), in whoso house the deceased took shelter immediately after the assault had told the police vide Ex. P -5 that it is Bisram who had assaulted the deceased. In Court, however, he tried to implicate all the accused. Firtu (P.W. 2) stated that he had seen the deceased going towards Bisram's house and then being assaulted by Bisram and others. He deposed that Bisram had a knife and that he gave knife blows. His testimony bas been discarded because he did not tell so to Beduram's brother Kheduram (P.W. 1) and that his statement was recorded by the police late. Similarly, Ramkumar (P.W. 3) also deposed to have seen the incident and Bisram giving knife blows to the deceased. His testimony was also rejected because be did not divulge this to anyone and that be was a tutored witness. After going through the deposition of these witnesses, we find that they made true statements when they deposed that they had seen Bisram assaulting the deceased with knife. Firtu is not related to the deceased and merely, because the witnesses did not relate the incident to deceased's brother is of no consequence because Bhanupratap who had taken the deceased to his house had already related the incident to those present. In our opinion, the statements of these two witnesses have been rejected for no good reasons in so far as they implicate Bisram. This more so because in that regard their testimony is corroborated by other circumstances which we have narrated above. Shri Khaskalam appearing for the respondents argued that independent witnesses have not been examined although even according to prosecution, such witnesses were present. In our opinion, under the circumstances of the case where the dispute is between the two parties, independent witnesses may well not come forward. This critics is, therefore, of no avail to the respondents. We, therefore, hold the respondent Bisram guilty of causing murder of Beduram.