Mansuram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon>ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J J. ^ Criminal Aooeal No. 1004 of 1998 Mansukh @ Mansuram Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ HON»BLESHRIJUSTICE R.N. CHANDRAKAR <T) ^^q^€^__ Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Post for Judgment : 3 /10/2013 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge
Legal Reasoning
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Honlble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J J Criminal Aooeal No. 1004 of 1998 APPELLANT ^ RESPONDENT Aged Mansukh @ Mansuram, S/o. 40 Ghaldu, years, Agriculture, Occupation- Resident of village Chhichlitola, P.S. Bagicha, District Raigarh, M.P. (Now C.G.) Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through Baghicha, District Raigarh Police Station (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 Appearance: Mr. R.K. Jain 85 Smt. Kiran Jain, Advocates appellant. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Advocate General for the State. for the •t ^- JUDGMENT (5 .10.2013) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant- Mansukh @ Mansuram has challenged the validity ofjudgment and order dated 3rd ofJanuary, 1997 passzd in Sessions Trial No. 227/96 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, District Raigarh, whereby he has been convicted u/S 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonraent for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of S.I. for 1 month. ^^^m^,^ '":'^ ^ • •"••^ ^y^ 3 i '-%W3^^ 1 | '^^ '''^•^4fS«sy %... L. c: ^- Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1998 [^) (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 2.1 Mansukh @ Mansuram (A-l) and his brother- Pujeri (A-2) were tried for the offences punishable u/S 302/34 IPC. 2.2 Mansukh (A-l) has been convicted, whereas, Pujeri (A- 2) has been acquitted giving benefit of doubt. 2.3 On 27.7.1996 at about 6-7.00 a.m., deceased- Bhola to his field along with agricultural Yadav had gone equipments. There Mansukh (A-l) attacked over him by a tangi. He sustained an injury on the right portion of neck. In fact, the neck was completely cut through 85 through and the head was attached with the trank by the skin of the leffc portion of neck. Esophagus, trachea, spinal cord, all arteries and veins were completely cut. There was another cut injury of8 x 4 x 3 cm on the right portion of the chest. The Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-9), opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock on account of above injury and the death was homicidal in nature. 2.4 The conviction was based on the solitary testimony of Ramjatan (PW-1). Ramjatan (PW-1) deceased. He had seen the incident is brother of the from a very short distance, because he had followed to the deceased along with oxen. His testimony was supported by the other witnesses who reached there and saw the dead body of the deceased. The Sessions Judge fully relied on the testimony of Ramjatan (PW-1) and convicted & sentenced the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. (3) Mr. R.K. Jain and Mrs. Kiran Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, have argued that Ramjafan ^.,...'.^. .^:^\ '^ " •m^:% i ¥^ ^y '^.^..--- ^^r^'' Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1998 (PW-1) is brother of the deceased, therefore, he was an interested witness and his testimony should have been discarded; that apart, he was not a reliable witness. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these argunients and supported the j'udgraent passed by the Sessions Court. (..... (5) We have heard counsel for the parties. c .^.. (6) There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, the reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused, In Namdeo -Vs- State of Maharashtra^ 2007 AIR SCW 1835, the Supreme Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested9 witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of %'is. ;lt ^ i 4 Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1998 such witnesSo Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victini is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative ofthe deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely iinplicate an innocent one (Vide: Harbans Kaur and Another -Vs- State of Haniana. 2005 AIR SCW 2074: SoneZa! -Vs- State of M.P., 2008 AIR SCW 7988 and Dhamidhar -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected apDeals, (2010)7 SCC 759). 1 l. (7) Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted that the L., testimony of Ramjatan (PW-1) has to be thrown out on the ground that he is the relative of the deceased. However his evidence is to be scrutinized with due care and caution and if such evidence is found credible in appreciation, the conviction can well be based on his testiniony. (8) Now we shall examine the evidence of Ramjatan (PW-1). (9) Ramjatan (PW-1) deposed that on the fateful day at about 7- 7.30 a.ni.^ firstly his brother (deceased) had gone to the fields along with a plough. After sometime, he also went to the field along with oxen. He reached to the place of occurrence and saw that the appellant attacked the deceased by a tangi on his head. The deceased fell down. Thereafter the appellant gsive tangi blow on his neck. The other accused- Pujeri (A-2) was holding the hands ofthe deceased. When he tried to go near the deceased, the appellant said hira that he shall kill him also. He became "a.'^ Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 1998 ^: frightened and ran ,p.way to call his brothers, Ramdeo and Balroop. He went to theni and narrated the incident. (10) Though Ramjatan (PW-1) was put to lengthy cross- examination by the defence, but nothing matenal could be brought in his cross-examination, on which, either his testimony may be discarded or it may be said that he was falsely implicating the appellant in the above incident. (11) Version of Ramjatan (PW-1) is duly corroborated by the First Information Report (Ex.-D/1) lodged by him. It is also corroborated by the evidence of Dr. R.N. Dubey (PW-9), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found above injuries. (12) The incident took place in between 7-7.30 a.m. The appellant was well known to the deceased as also Ramjatan (PW- 1) as they were residents of same village. Therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity. Moreover, Ramjatan (PW-1), from the very beginning, has stated that the appellant had attacked over the deceased in the above manner. This we find in almost all the proved police documents. (13) The appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/lO) was also recorded u/S 27 of the Evidence Act and tangi and dhoti were seized at his instance. These articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science • L. -^- '^ .fti^ ^ ^ ^ Criminal Aweal No. 1004 of 1998 Laboratory (FSL), Raipur, from where, a report (Ex.-P/16) was received. According to the FSL report, blood stains were foundon all the articles, including dhofi and tangi, except the plain soil seized from the place of occurrence. (14) We have carefully scrutinized the evidence of Ramjatan (PW- 1). His evidence is cogent, clinching and reliable. We are Qf the view that the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in resting the conviction of the appellant on the solitary testimony of Ramjatan (PW-1), who was a wholly reliable witness.
Decision
(15) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be disraissed and is hereby dismissed. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge vatti