Dinesh Sahu Alias Dinnu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 740 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). 960/2021

DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The instant appeal arises out of the impugned judgment

and order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Criminal

Appeal No. 1867 of 2007, whereby the High Court has

confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007,

passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhopal in S.T. No.43 of 2007, convicting the present

appellant Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu and the co-accused

Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma,

for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them

to suffer Life Imprisonment along with a fine of Signature Not Verified Rs.3,000/-, in default thereof to undergo further Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2024.09.27 14:29:34 IST Reason: rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell was that, one

Vinod Sai (since deceased) was running a light

refreshment stall under the name and style of Ajay Tea

Stall Baba Board Chowraha. There was a previous enemity

between the said Vinod Sai (since deceased) and Raju

Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma. On

10.09.2004, a quarrel took place between the above

parties and both lodged reports against each other.

Driven by the same, on 11.11.2006 at 07:00 p.m., when

Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) and Vinod Sai (since deceased) were

at the shop, the said Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma

alias Naresh Sharma armed with sword and Dinesh Sahu

alias Dinnu (the appellant herein) armed with a khukri,

came on the spot. Both of them inflicted several blows

on Vinod Sai. As a result, thereof, he fell down and

died on the spot.

3. According to the further case of the prosecution, on

hearing the ruckus, Kamal, Kalim, Anil, Salman and

Santosh rushed to the spot to save Vinod Sai but the

appellant- Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu threatened them by

showing khukri, and thereafter both the accused, namely,

Raju Sharma and Dinesh Sahu, fled away from the spot. At

that time, Shashi Bai (PW-13), the mother of Vinod Sai

was coming to the shop of her son to take charge of the 3

shop and she witnessed the entire incident.

4. At the instance of the informant Kamal Sanwale (PW-6),

Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) was prepared by Arvind Singh

Raghuvanshi, who was the Investigating Officer of the

case and a temporary Crime bearing No. 0/06 was

registered for the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Dehati

Nalisi was sent to the Police Station, Habibganj for

registration, where it was registered as Crime

No.1100/2006. After the completion of the investigation,

charge-sheet was filed against both the accused.

5. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution and on

appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the

accused, namely, Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias

Naresh Sharma for the offence punishable under Section

302 of the IPC and Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu, for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section

34 of the IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of

conviction and sentence, both the accused preferred the

Criminal Appeal No.1867 of 2007 before the High Court,

which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment

and order passed by the Trial Court.

4

7. The present appellant (Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu), being

aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the

High Court, has preferred the instant appeal.

8. The learned counsel, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, appearing for

the appellant, taking the Court to the record of the

case, more particularly, the evidence of the witnesses,

strenuously urged that all the material witnesses had

turned hostile including the informant Kamal Singh (PW-

6). She further submitted that neither the evidence of

Pratap Singh (PW-14), in whose presence the alleged

recovery of khukri was made from the house of the

appellant, was reliable nor the evidence of the mother

of the deceased, Shashi Bai (PW-13), was reliable.

According to her, even the very presence of Shashi Bai

(PW-13) was doubtful inasmuch as, her statement was

recorded three days after the alleged incident took

place. She further submitted that the appellant has

already undergone incarceration for a period of more

than 11 years (as on the date) and that there being no

evidence on record against the appellant to show that

the appellant had shared the same intention as his co-

accused-Raju Sharma to kill Vinod Sai, the appellant

should be given benefit of doubt.

5

9. However, the learned counsel Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker,

appearing for the respondent-State would vehemently

submit that there being concurrent finding of facts

recorded by the two Courts below, this Court in exercise

of the powers under Article-136 of the Constitution of

India, should not interfere with the same, more

particularly, when the prosecution had proved the

charges levelled against the present appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. She has placed heavy reliance on the

evidence of Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-17), who had carried out

the post-mortem of the deceased, who had opined in his

post-mortem report that the cause of death of the

appellant was due to several injuries sustained by him

and that such injuries are possible with the weapon

recovered from the appellant-accused.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, and to the evidence available

on record, it appears that the guilt of the appellant

was sought to be established by the prosecution by

examining as many as seventeen witnesses, including the

informant Kamal Singh and the other eye-witnesses, as

also the Shashi Bai (PW-13), who was the mother of the

deceased. It is true that except the two witnesses, 6

namely, Pratap Singh (PW-14) and Shashi Bai (PW-13), the

other material witnesses had turned hostile.

Nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the evidence

of witnesses cannot be totally discarded, merely because

they have turned hostile to the case of prosecution

during the course of trial. The informant, Kamal Singh

(PW-6), had admitted his signatures on the Dehati Nalisi

(Ex.P/1), which was recorded immediately after the

incident in question involving both the accused in the

alleged incident. It is further required to be noted

that one of the panch witnesses, namely, Pratap Singh

(PW-14) has duly supported the case of the prosecution

as regards the recovery of the alleged weapon, Khukri,

from the house of the present appellant. Though the said

witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense

counsel, nothing significant adverse to the case of

prosecution has come on record. Of course, the learned

counsel for the appellant had tried to impeach the

credibility of the said witness by submitting that he

was an interested witness as he was known to the

deceased Vinod Sai, and also since he had come to the

Court in a drunken condition, the said fact was taken

into consideration by the Trial Court at the time of

recording his deposition by noting that though, the 7

witness was drunk, he was perfectly in sound state of

mind to understand the questions put to him and was able

to give his deposition. Merely because the said witness

knew the deceased, it cannot be said that he was an

interested witness or an unreliable witness.

11. The mother of the deceased, Shashi Bai (PW-13), was also

thoroughly cross-examined by the defense and nothing

adverse to the case of prosecution had come on record,

which would help the case of the appellant.

12. It is also pertinent to note that Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-17),

who had carried the post-mortem of the deceased, had

also opined that the injuries on the body of the

deceased were possible with the alleged weapon/ article

khukri, which was recovered from the house of the

present appellant. The said weapon khukri, seized/

recovered from the house of the appellant was also sent

to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and as per its

report, the human blood of ‘Group B’ was present on it,

which was the blood group of the deceased.

13. In view of the above evidence, we are of the opinion

that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt

of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Even the two

Courts below have also discussed the said evidence in

detail and found him guilty of the charges levelled 8

against him.

14. We do not see any good ground to interfere with the said

concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts

below.

15. In that view of the matter, the present appeal is

dismissed.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

...................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

...................J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

New Delhi 22nd August, 2024 9

(REPORTABLE) ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 960/2021

DINESH SAHU ALIAS DINNU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)

([ PART HEARD BY : HON'BLE BELA M. TRIVEDI AND HON'BLE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ. ] IA No. 106254/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 100201/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 22-08-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Appellant(s) Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed

reportable judgment.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

(NISHA KHULBEY) (MAMTA RAWAT) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed judgment is placed on the file)