Meharban
Singh & Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[2001] Insc 640 (5
December 2001)
U.C.
Banerjee & K.G. Balakrishnan K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
The
appellants herein have challenged their conviction and sentence under Section
302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and also under Sections 147 and 148, I.P.C.
These appellants, along with four others, were tried by the Court of Sessions
Judge, Guna, Madhya Pradesh alleging that they had caused the death of one Halkiya.
On 13.3.1984, at about 8O clock while PW-1 Hari Singh, nephew of deceased Halkiya
was working in his field, PW-2 Harnam Singh came and told that his uncle Halkiya
was lying injured near the field of Udham Singh. PW-1 rushed to the place and
saw Halkiya lying injured. On the way he had informed Patel Pritam Singh( PW-6)
and also Chowkidar Munni Lal (PW-5). Brother of PW-1 brought a bullock cart to
take the injured Halkiya to hospital, but on the way Halkiya died and the
bullock cart was diverted to the police station, which was about 8 Kms. away
from the place of incident. PW-1 lodged the F.I. statement before the Station
Officer. According to PW-1, injured Halkiya had told PW-1 that he was assaulted
by nine persons. The names of all these persons were given by PW-1 in the F.I.
statement.
On the
basis of statement given by PW-1, a case was registered against these nine
persons and the body of Halkiya was sent for post-mortem examination. PW-4
conducted the post-mortem examination and found that there was an incise wound
on the right side of the skull of the deceased, possibly caused by a hard and
blunt object.
There
were two other incised wounds, alleged to have been caused by hard and sharp
cutting object on the right hand. In addition, there were 8 contusions on the
various parts of the body. The Doctor was of the opinion that after sustaining
these injuries, Halkiya must have been alive for 2-4 hours.
The
initial investigation was conducted by the Chief Inspector Narayan Prasad Srivastava
and thereafter by R.B.Dubey. He prepared the site plan and obtained some
blood-stained sand from the scene of occurrence. He interrogated the accused
persons and on 14.3.1984, one farsa from accused Meharban Singh and one bamboo
stick each from accused Jagannath Singh and Bhiya Lal were recovered.
Though
two eyewitnesses were examined in this case, their evidence was not believed by
the Sessions Court. The appellants were found guilty mainly on the evidence of
PW-1 Hari Singh, PW-2 Harnam Singh and PW-3 Kalyan Singh. These three witnesses
deposed that when they saw deceased Halkiya, he was alive and gave statement to
them that he was attacked by these appellants. The counsel for the appellants
contended before us that the statement given by these witnesses could not have
been relied upon by the Sessions Court as well as High Court, as the deceased Halkiya
was not in a fit condition to give the statement. PW-1 Hari Singh gave the
evidence to the effect that when he reached the place of incident and found
that Halkiya was lying injured in the pathway leading from Rusia to Aron, he
enquired as to who had assaulted and then Halkiya told the names of all the
persons. PW-1 also deposed that he had gone to PW-5 Munni Lal and PW-6 Pritam
Singh on his way to the place of incident. He further stated that PW-5 Munni Lal
reached the place of incident and the condition of Halkiya was bad and he could
give only the names of four persons and then his brother Kallu reached there
with the bullock cart and the injured was taken to Aron.
PW-2 Harnam
Singh deposed that on the date of incident at about 7 oclock in the morning he
went to the house of Patel Hartoom Singh to get a loan application. While he
was coming back, he saw Halkiya lying on the pathway near the field of Udham
Singh. He went near the injured Halkiya who told him that nine persons including
these appellants had attacked him with lathis and farsas. PW-3 also deposed
that Halkiya gave out the names of persons who had attacked him. The Sessions
Court as well as the High Court mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2 Harnam
Singh, who had seen the injured in the first instance. According to PW-2 Harnam
Singh, the injured Halkiya disclosed the names of Meharban Singh, Halke Bhaya, Bhagwat
Singh, Bhayalal, Jagannath, Udham Singh and Ram Swaroop. The High Court, after
careful consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that
these appellants had caused injuries to the deceased Halkiya.
The
main argument advanced by the appellants counsel is that the deceased might not
have given the names of assailants and taking into consideration the serious
nature of the injury caused to his skull, the deceased must have been either
dead or unconscious, and that there is no evidence to show that the deceased
was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration. It was argued that
the evidence of PW-1 to 3 should not have been accepted by the Court. It was
also pointed out by the appellants counsel that PW-5 and PW-6, who were present
at the time when injured was taken in the bullock cart, failed to support the
prosecution and this fact also would show that the dying declaration was false
and unreliable.
It is
important to note that the witnesses not only reached the place of incident but
also took steps to take the deceased in a bullock cart to the nearby hospital
and this shows that deceased Halkiya must have been alive at that time. While
the injured was being taken in the bullock cart, on the way he died and
thereafter the dead body was directly taken to the Police Station. There, the
First Information Report was lodged and in the FIR, it is mentioned that dead
body of Halkiya was in the Police Station. The evidence of PW1 to PW3, coupled
with the medical evidence and other surrounding circumstances convincingly
proved that the dying declaration given by the deceased, must have been true and
the Sessions Court as well as the High Court was very careful in accepting this
dying declaration and wherever there was any doubt as to the involvement of
some of the accused, the court granted the benefit thereof and acquitted those
accused. The names of the appellants were disclosed by the deceased to three
witnesses who gave their evidence before the court and the two courts accepted
that evidence and did not find any infirmity or miscarriage of justice in this
case. The appeal is without any merits and is dismissed accordingly.
.J (
U.C. Banerjee ) .
J (
K.G. Balakrishnan ) December
5, 2001.
Back