Mishrilal
& Ors Vs. State of M.P. & Ors [2005] Insc 330 (11 May 2005)
K.G.
Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
The
four appellants along with two others were found guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
They
were also found guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC. The appellants
preferred an appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence,
they challenge their conviction and sentence in this appeal.
The
incident giving rise to the present appeal happened on 22.7.1990 at about 6.00 p.m. PW-1 Kammod, PW-2 Mokam Singh and deceased Balmukund
were grazing the cattle in their fields. The appellants along with their
accomplices came there and attacked Balmukund and PW-2 Mokam Singh. Appellants Mishrilal
and Lallu @ Lalaram were armed with axe and A-3 Kamoda @ Kamod Singh was armed
with 'lathi' while A-4 Narayan Singh was armed with a 'Luhangi.' The
prosecution case is that all of them caused injuries to deceased Balmukund. PW
1 Kammod later went to the Police Station at Bajranggarh and gave information
about the incident.
On the
side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined.
PWs 1
to 4 are eye witnesses. The evidence of PW 4 Mathura Lal was not accepted by
the Sessions Judge as his name was not mentioned in the F.I. Statement. The
Sessions Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3. The High Court also
accepted the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3.
We
heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel on behalf of
the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellants seriously contended
before us that the incident happened after the sunset and these witnesses could
not have identified the assailants. It was pointed out that these witnesses
were standing at a distance and due to paucity of light, they had no
opportunity to identify the assailants. We are not inclined to accept this
contention, for the reason that the incident is alleged to have happened at
about 6'o Clock in the evening and the prosecution case is that deceased Balmukund
as well as PW 1 and PW 2 were grazing the cattle in their field at that time
and there would not have been much darkness.
Moreover,
in the cross-examination of PW 1, there is not even a suggestion that there was
no light and they were unable to see the incident, though, of course, there was
a suggestion to the effect that the witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 must have been
standing at a distance.
The
learned Counsel for the appellants seriously attacked the evidence of PW 2 Mokam
Singh. This witness was examined by the Sessions Judge on 6.2.1991 and
cross-examined on the same day by the defence counsel. Thereafter, it seems,
that on behalf of the accused persons an application was filed and PW 2 Mokam
Singh was recalled. PW-2 was again examined and cross-examined on 31.7.1991. It
may be noted that some of the persons who were allegedly involved in this
incident were minors and their case was tried by the Juvenile Court. PW 2 Mokam
Singh was also examined as a witness in the case before the Juvenile court. In
the Juvenile Court, he gave evidence to the effect that he was not aware of the
persons who had attacked him and on hearing the voice of the assailants, he
assumed that they were some Banjaras. Upon recalling, PW-2 Mokam Singh was
confronted with the evidence he had given later before the Juvenile Court on
the basis of which the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under
Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt on the life of this witness.
In our
opinion, the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in
accordance with law. Once the witness was examined in-chief and cross-examined
fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the
evidence he had already given before the court, even though that witness had
given an inconsistent statement before any other court or forum subsequently. A
witness could be confronted only with a previous statement made by him. At the
time of examination of PW 2 Mokam Singh on 6.2.1991, there was no such previous
statement and the defence counsel did not confront him with any statement
alleged to have been made previously. This witness must have given some other
version before the Juvenile Court for extraneous reasons and he should not have
been given a further opportunity at a later stage to completely efface the
evidence already given by him under oath. The courts have to follow the
procedures strictly and cannot allow a witness to escape the legal action for
giving false evidence before the court on mere explanation that he had given it
under the pressure of the police or some other reason. Whenever the witness
speaks falsehood in the court, and it is proved satisfactorily, the court
should take a serious action against such witnesses.
PW 2 Mokam
Singh, when examined on 6-2-1991, gave evidence to the effect that
he and deceased Balmukund were attacked by the appellants herein. PW-3 is the
daughter of the deceased Balmukund. She had also given evidence to the effect
that these four appellants came to the place of incident and caused injuries to
her father Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh. She also deposed that the accused
persons were carrying axe, farsa, lathis and some other weapons.
The
medical evidence in this case shows that deceased Balmukund had sustained as
many as 8 injuries. Except one injury, all others were lacerated injuries. The
learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence to show
that appellants Mishrilal and Lallu @ Lalaram caused injuries with an axe and
that there is no corresponding incised injury on the head of the deceased and
hence the medical evidence is in conflict with the evidence of the eye-
witnesses. That plea also is not correct as the post-mortem certificate shows
that there was an injury on the head of the deceased which must have been
caused by the appellant Mishrilal. Injury nos. 1 and 3 are on the left fronto-temporo
parietal region and mid parietal region.
The
blunt edge of the axe must have been used to cause these injuries.
The
evidence of the three witnesses, namely PW-1 to PW-3, coupled with the medical
evidence satisfactorily proved that the appellants had committed the offence as
alleged by the prosecution.
There
is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence entered
against the appellants. The appeal is without any merits and is dismissed
accordingly.
....J.
(K.G.
BALAKRISHNAN) .J.
(B.N.
SRIKRISHNA) New Delhi May 11. 2005.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 939
OF 2004 Mishrilal & Ors. ..Appellants Versus State of M.P. & Ors. ..Respondents
K.G. Balakrishnan,
J.
The
four appellants along with two others were found guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They were also found
guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC. The appellants had preferred an
appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence, they challenge
their conviction sentence.
The
incident happened on 22.7.1990 at about 6.00 p.m. PW 1 Kammod, PW 2 Mokam Singh and deceased Balmukund were grazing the
cattle in their fields. The appellants alongwith others came there and attacked
Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh. The appellants Mishrilal and Lallu @ Lalaram
were armed with axe and A-3 Kamoda @ Kamod Singh was armed with lathi and A-4 Narayan
Singh was armed with Luhangi. The prosecution case is that all of them caused
injuries to deceased Balmukund. PW 1 Kammod later went to the Police Station at
Bajranggarh and gave information about the incident.
On the
side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined. PWs 1 to 4 are eye
witnesses. The evidence of PW 4 Mathura Lal was not accepted by the Sessions
Judge as his name was not mentioned in the FI Statement. The Sessions Court
relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3. The High Court also accepted the
evidence of PW 1 to PW 3.
We
heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel on behalf of
the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellants seriously contended
before us that the incident happened after the sunset and these witnesses could
not have identified the assailants. It was pointed out that these witnesses
were standing at a distance and due to paucity of light, they had no
opportunity to identify them. We are not inclined to accept this contention for
the reason that the incident happened at about 6'o Clock in the evening.
Moreover, the prosecution case is that the deceased Balmukund as well as PW 1
and PW 2 were grazing the cattle in their field and at that time there would
not have been much darkness. Moreover, in the cross-examination of PW 1, there
is not even a suggestion that there was no light and they were unable to see
the incident. Of course, the suggestion was to the effect that the witnesses PW
1 and PW 2 must have been standing at a distance.
The
learned Counsel for the appellants seriously attacked the evidence of PW 2 Mokam
Singh. This witness was examined by the Sessions Judge on 6.2.1991 and he was
cross-examined on the same day by the defence Counsel and thereafter it seems
that on behalf of the accused persons, an application was filed to recall these
witnesses and PW 2 Mokam Singh was recalled and examined on 31.7.1991 for
further cross-examination. It may be noted that some of the persons who were
allegedly involved in this incident were minors and their case was tried by the
Juvenile Court. PW 2 Mokam Singh was examined as a witness in the Juvenile
court. In the Juvenile Court, he gave evidence to the effect that he was not
aware of the persons who had attacked him and on hearing the voice of the
assailants, he assumed that they were some Banjaras.
After
recalling PW 2 Mokam Singh the evidence he had given later before the Juvenile
Court was confronted to the witnesses and based on that, the accused persons
were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt
on the life of this witness.
The
procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in accordance with
law. When once the witness was examined in-chief and cross- examined in full,
and even if the witness had given any statement thereafter before any other
court or forum, such witnesses shall not be recalled and examined to deny the
evidence he had already given before the Court. A witness could be confronted
only with previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of PW 2 Mokam
Singh, there was no such previous statement and the defence Counsel did not
confront any statement made by him previously. The witness must have given some
other version before the Juvenile Court for extraneous reasons and he should
not have been given a further opportunity at a later stage to completely efface
the evidence already given by him under oath. The courts have to view these
things seriously, and the witnesses often escape from any action for giving
false evidence before the Court on mere explanation that they had been giving
it under the pressure of the police or some other reason. Whenever the witness
speaks falsehood in court and if it is proved satisfactorily, the court should
take a serious action against such persons.
PW 2 Mokam
Singh when examined on 6-2-1991 and gave evidence to the effect
that he and deceased Balmukund were attacked by the appellants herein. PW 3 is
the daughter of the deceased Balmukund. She had also given evidence to the
effect that these four appellants came there and caused injury to her father Balmukund
and PW 2 Mokam Singh. She also deposed that the accused persons were carrying
axe, farsa, lathis and some other weapons.
The
medical evidence in this case shows that deceased Balmukund had sustained as
many as 8 injuries. Except one injury, all others were lacerated injuries. The
learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence to show
that the appellant Mishrilal and appellant Lallu @ Lalaram caused injury with
an axe on the head and there is no corresponding incised injury on the head and
hence the medical evidence is in conflict with the evidence of the
eye-witnesses. That plea also is not correct as the post mortem certificate
shows that there was injury on his head which must have been caused by the
appellant Mishrilal. Injury no. 1 and 3 are on the left fronto-temporo-
parietal region and mid parietal region. The blunt edge of the axe must have
been used to cause these injuries.
The
evidence of these three witnesses coupled with the medical evidence
satisfactorily proved that the appellants had committed an offence as alleged
by the prosecution. There is no reason to interfere with the conviction
sentence and the appeal is without any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Back