Prahalad Patel vs State Of M.P

Prahalad Patel .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and

order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 1996

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the

judgment dated 26.02.1996 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1995 convicting the

appellant herein under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

(in short `the IPC') and sentenced him to undergo

1

imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2) Brief Facts:

(a) In Village Chandpur, the accused Prahalad Patel, while

cultivating his land had thrown bushes on the path. Daulat-

the deceased objected to it and told the accused not to throw

the bushes on the path, because of this, there was an

altercation between the deceased and the accused. Due to

this incident, the accused developed a grudge against the

deceased. On 01.02.1995, at around 12 hours, when the

deceased was breaking stones in the mine and one Nanhebhai

(PW-1) was collecting it nearby, at that time, accused Prahalad

Patel came there with an axe and inflicted several injuries to

the deceased by hitting him at his right leg, left hand, left

shoulder and on back of his head, due to which, he fell down

on the earth and blood started oozing out. One Gudda-

brother of the accused was also present in the mine but, out of

fear, Nanhebhai (PW-1) and Gudda did not try to save the

deceased. Thereafter, Nanhebhai (PW-1) rushed to the house

of Daulat and narrated the whole incident to his brother and

2

mother. They went to the mine and brought Daulat. He was

taken to Police Station Rahli but by that time he became

unconscious. The report of the incident (Ex. P-1) was lodged

by Nanhebhai (PW-1) in the Police Station. Thereafter, Daulat

was sent for medical examination to the hospital at Rahli. Dr.

Gupta (PW-9) examined him and issued a report (Ex.P-10)

mentioning various injuries. On the advise of the doctor, in an

unconscious condition, he was taken to Medical College

Hospital at Jabalpur for further treatment. During treatment,

he succumbed to injuries. The dead body was sent for post-

mortem and Dr. A.K.Jain (PW-16) conducted the post-mortem

and prepared a report (Ex. P-21). According to him, the cause

of death was due to cut and other injuries.

(b) During investigation, police prepared a spot map and

seized the blood stained sand and simple sand from the place

of incident. The accused was taken into custody and the axe

was recovered at his instance. On completion of investigation,

charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302

IPC.

3 (c) The accused denied having committed any offence and

stated that he had enmity with Nanhebhai (PW-1) because

there is a case pending against the brother of Nanhebhai for

causing injuries to his father and, therefore, he falsely

implicated him.

(d) The Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials, by

judgment dated 26.02.1996, accepted the prosecution's case

and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment

for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

(e) Being aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, the

accused preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh at Jabalpur. The Division Bench of the High Court,

by its impugned judgment dated 14.03.2005, upheld the

conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge and confirmed the

conviction and sentence of the accused.

f) Questioning the same, the accused had filed the above

appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave

4

3) Heard Mr. D.B. Goswami, learned counsel for the

accused/appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel

for the respondent-State.

4) There is no dispute that there was an altercation between

the accused and the deceased on a petty issue and the

accused nurtured grudge against the deceased. On

01.02.1995, when the deceased was working in the mine, the

accused inflicted several injuries to the deceased with an axe.

Immediately after the occurrence, Nanhebhai (PW-1), who was

working in the same mine informed his family members about

the incident and they took the injured to the Police Station

and (PW-1) made a statement about the incident which has

been marked as (Ex. P-1). When the deceased was taken to

Medical College Hospital at Jabalpur, Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16)

certified that he succumbed to his injuries. The evidence of

eye-witness (PW-1) and his report (Ex. P-1), the statement of

Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16) and his report (Ex. P-21) clearly prove

that the death of Daulat was homicidal.

5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended

that there was discrepancy in the number of injuries as

5

recorded by Dr. Gupta (PW-9) and by Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16). It

is true that the doctor who conducted the autopsy found as

many as eight injuries which are as follows:-

"(i) Repaired wound present over back of right shoulder top 4"

long.

(ii) Incised wound back of neck at the level of C7 T1 1x=x=.

(iii) Repaired wound over the back of skull left side of occiput 1"

long transversely.

(iv) Repaired wound present over the Cervico-temporal region

left side vertical 3" long.

(v) Chop wound present over left eye brow region cutting the

skin muscle and underlying bone 2"x1"x1".

(vi) Chop wound on the upper part left to forearm near elbow

cutting the ulna and lower part of humerus bone 4" x2" x bone

deep.

(vii) Repaired wound present over the right knee and

(viii) Multiple small abrasion present over the face below the left

eye and chin."

It is equally true that in (Ex. P-10), medical examination report

prepared by Dr. Gupta (PW-9), all the above-mentioned

injuries have not been noted. However, as rightly observed by

the High Court, sometimes some injuries may not be visible

6

after passage of time. In fact, this suggestion was not put to

the doctors concerned. Whatever may be, as analyzed and

concluded by the High Court, cause of death in this case was

cranio cerebral injuries which have been found by both the

doctors insofar as fatal injuries are concerned and, for this,

there is no discrepancy between the two reports. We also

verified both the reports and we are satisfied that the said

discrepancy is not material to the prosecution case.

6) The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of (PW-1),

eye-witness to the incident. (PW-1) also narrated the earlier

incident about throwing bushes on the path-way to the

agricultural field and the altercation between the accused and

the deceased and also of the fact that he accompanied the

deceased to the mine, there is no reason to disbelieve his

version. Apart from this, it was (PW-1) who took the injured to

the hospital and made a complaint in the Police Station. In

addition to the same, the prosecution has also examined Kallu

(PW-2)-brother of the deceased and (PW-7)-another brother of

the deceased. Both of them, in their evidence, have affirmed

that (PW-1) had come to their house and informed them that

7

Prahalad Patel-the accused assaulted Daulat with an axe.

They further narrated that Daulat was rushed to the Hospital

and on the way, (PW-1) made a complaint to the police. The

evidence of (PW-1) and the corroborative statements of PWs 2

and 7 support the prosecution case. Though, PWs 2 and 7 are

brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect

credibility of a witness. In a series of decisions, this court has

accepted the above principle [vide Israr vs. State of U.P.

(2005) 9 SCC 616 and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P.

, (2006) 10 SCC 163 = AIR 2006 SC 2716]. Their evidence

fully corroborates with the evidence of (PW-1) about the

manner of occurrence and he witnessed the same.

7) We have already noted that Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-16) has

observed that the death was due to the injuries sustained.

The weapon of offence, namely, axe was seized at the instance

of the accused. The report from the Forensic Science

Laboratory (Ex. P-17) shows that the blood found on the axe

was human blood.

8) It is settled law that when the trial Court and the

appellate Court, on proper appreciation of evidence by relying

8

on acceptable materials, arrived at a conclusion, in the

absence of perversity in such a conclusion, interference by this

Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution is not warranted. Considering the evidence of

(PW-1) and additional testimony of PWs 2 and 7 coupled with

doctors' evidence and seizure of the weapon and the FSL

report, we hold that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond doubt against the accused and the same was rightly

considered by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the Division

Bench of the High Court. We do not find any legal ground for

interference.

9) Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is

dismissed.

...........................................

......J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

..............................................J.

(H.L. GOKHALE)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 2, 2011.

9 1