of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Basodi  Insc 790 (1 August 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & P.P. Naolekar Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur directing acquittal of the respondent
(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') by setting aside the judgment of
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara who had convicted the
accused-respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short
the 'Arms Act'). Life imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment
respectively were awarded. Accused was charged for having committed the murder
of his nephew Mangalu (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased').
Background facts in a nutshell are as under:
19.8.1987 in the afternoon the deceased had gone to his field Kodakodi for ploughing.
The respondent who happened to be uncle of deceased dissuaded the deceased from
ploughing the field. But the deceased continued to plough the field. The
respondent fired at the deceased from his muzzle loading gun. The deceased
after sustaining the injury fell on the ground. The respondent rushed to his
village and narrated about the incident to Ramprasad (PW-3), Maresha (PW-8) and
other villagers that he had shot the deceased, whereupon the complainant Jangalu
(PW-1) and his father Bhagan Singh (PW-5), Doulot (PW-6) and Maresha (PW-8)
went to the field and saw the deceased lying injured. When the deceased was
being brought to his house he died on the way.
complainant Jangalu along with others went to the police station and lodged FIR
(Ex.P-10) on 21-8-1987 and investigation proceeded. On the
memorandum of the respondent (Ex.P-4) muzzle loading gun was recovered and
seized vide Ex.P-5. The police also seized blood stained clothes of the
respondent and sent the seized articles to the FSL, Sagar for chemical
examination and report.
receipt of the report of the chemical examiner (Ex.P- 11) and completing the
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance of the offence was
accordingly taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions for
prosecution examined in all ten witnesses at the trial.
was of false implication on account of the family feud to the land dispute.
trial Court disbelieved the claim of recovery of gun.
however, held that the extra-judicial confession before complainant Jangalu
(PW-1), Ramprasad (PW-3) and Maresha (PW-8) was clearly acceptable and
accordingly convicted the accused as afore-stated.
Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. Primary
stand before the High Court was that the so called extra judicial confession
was not believable. The prosecution version is totally inconsistent. No
explanation has been offered for the delay in lodging the First Information
Report. The High Court found that the evidence relating to extra judicial
confession is clearly unacceptable and accordingly directed acquittal as noted
support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the High Court has not indicated any basis or reason for discarding the extra
Learned counsel for the accused-respondent supported the judgment of acquittal.
is to be noted that the occurrence took place on 19.8.1987 at about 4.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged on 21.8.1987. From the evidence
of PW-8 it appears that the accused purportedly came and told him about having
shot his nephew i.e. the deceased. He advised the accused to go to the Kotwar
of Almod. Ram Prasad (PW-3) is the son of Village Kotwar. PW-1 also stated that
when the accused was being taken by him, PW-3 and PW-8 to the Police Station,
the accused again confessed having killed the deceased.
to the version of PW-3 the distance between the place of occurrence and his
house is about 10 K.M. and it takes about two hours to reach his place. He has
stated that the accused reached him at about 4.00 p.m. According to the FIR and the version of PW-1 and PW-8, the
occurrence took place at 4.00
p.m. and thereafter
PW-8 had advised the accused to go to the Kotwar of Almod. This statement,
therefore, is contradictory in the sense that if accused had made any
confession before PW-3 at about 4.00 p.m. after travelling the distance from the house of PW-8, the incidence
could not have taken place at about 4.00 p.m. as claimed by PW-1 and PW-3. According to PW-3's evidence the accused
was not carrying weapon i.e. the gun with him when he had gone to the house of
PW-3. PW-3 claimed that he brought accused with him to the village where PW-1,
PW-8 and others were present. He then asked the accused to go home and next day
they started for the police station. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged on
21.8.1987 at about 1.00
p.m. No explanation
whatsoever has been offered for the delayed presentation of the FIR. It was the
specific stand of the prosecution that PWs. 1, 3 and 8 had taken the accused
with them to the police station where the gun was seized from the accused. This
version gets totally discredited in view of what the police official (PW-10)
stated. According to him, the statement of the accused was recorded when he was
found after search and the accused was not before him when the FIR was lodged.
He alongwith some other persons reached Varud village, the place of occurrence
on 22.8.1987. The accused was found after covering the village on 24.8.1987.
Nothing more need be stated to show that the so called extra-judicial
confession is a myth and the prosecution version lacks credibility and has been
rightly discarded by the High Court. The order of acquittal passed by the High
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pages: 1 2