Baboo And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh wherein a Division Bench confirmed the conviction of the three appellants herein for the offence of murder. In all five accused were tried under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and the trial court convicted all the five accused and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of the accused Durjan and Pooran and altered the conviction of the remaining three accused namely the appellants herein to one under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment for life was, however, confirmed. Accused Mulayam Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 223/83 and accused Baboo and Rajju have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 635/84.

2. The prosecution case is that Durjan, one of the accused and Chauda, the deceased were on inimical terms because of some land dispute. On 26.12.78 the deceased and his wife Ram Toriya, P.W. 2 went to their field to dig Kandi. In the afternoon at about 2.30 P.M. the five accused came there armed with axes and lathis and inflicted blows on the deceased who raised an alarm which attracted the attention of P.W. 2 who was at a distance of 10 to 15 paces. P.W. 2 saw Durjan, Pooran and Baboo grappling with the deceased and Mulayam Singh and Rajju giving him axe blows. Both the hands of the deceased were chopped off. P.W. 2 raised an alarm and hearing the same Man Singh, P.W. 3 and Sukke, P.W. 10 came there and they also saw the accused assaulting the deceased. P.W. 3 went to the village and informed Halku, P.W. 1 who came to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased who was still conscious and is alleged to have mentioned the names of his assailants. Halku, P.W. 1, however, met the Sub Inspector in the evening at the Bus-stand and orally informed him about the occurrence. The Sub Inspector came to the village and interrogated witnesses. The next day morning a recovery report was given which was treated as FIR in the case. The inquest was held over the dead body and the same was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor found a number of injuries and opined that the death was due to excessive haemorrhage due to the injuries.

3. The prosecution case mainly rested on the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 10. It was contended before the courts below that the F.I.R. is inadmissible as it was recorded during the course of investigation and therefore it has no corroborative value. The courts below, however, held that the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 10 is more than sufficient to prove the occurrence. The High Court, however, acquitted Durjan and Pooran on the sole ground that P.W. 10, one of the eye-witnesses did not say that they were also attacking the deceased. So far as the present appellants are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 10 is found to be consistent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that because of the standing crop P.Ws 3 and 10 could not have witnessed the occurrence and that other persons working in the neighbouring fields have not been examined. His further submission was that even P.W. 2 exaggerated her version by saying that the deceased gave an oral dying declaration though in fact he could not have given such a declaration as opined by the Doctor. He further submitted that the fact that the F.I.R. was not recorded on the same night would go to show that there were consultations and these accused are falsely implicated.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the accused did not abscond and they were in the village when the police came and that by itself shows that they were innocent.

6. We have perused the evidence of P.Ws 2, 3 and 10 carefully. P.W. 2, the wife is the most natural witness and her evidence is simple and straight forward and the same has been believed by the two courts. If any corroboration is necessary, the same can be found in the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 10. P.W. 2 categorically stated that having witnessed that ghastly occurrence she became somewhat unconscious and was not in a position to move about to report the matter. Just because the evidence regarding the oral dying declaration is doubted by the courts below, that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of these eye-witnesses. The circumstance that the accused did not abscond cannot be stretched to the extent of rejecting the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Both the courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for believing the evidence of these witnesses.

Both the and the same establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

7. Accordingly both these are dismissed.