CASE:-MADHO SINGH RAWAT V. STATE OF M.P
(14TH DECEMBER 2021)
Citation | 303 of 2010. |
Date of Judgement | 14th December 2021. |
Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh. |
Case type | Criminal appeal. |
Appellant | Madho Singh Rawat. |
Respondent | State of M.P. |
Bench | Rajeev Singh Shrivastava. |
Referred | 161, 299 300 IPC. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the police station encounter Mohan Singh was a co-accused person was killed. Accused person Madho Singh Rawat and the another one, Gulab Singh were declared, trial and then sentenced on what is stated above. Madho Singh Rawat had a real brother named as Kamal Singh who is also an accused person. There was an agriculture field of the person named as Prakash Ahirwar that was situated near the another agriculture field of the deceased person.
When the incident took place that day Ashok Singh, the complainant Dashrath Singh and the deceased person Sanjay alias baba on that day repairing the electrical supply which was not working properly. By digging a pit the deceased one Sanjay Alias Baba was fixing the wooden pole. Due to the previous conflict, Mohan Singh, an accused person, fired a gunshot that was hitted on that back of Sanjay, deceased one. Then Gulab Singh, another accused, fired at Sanjay on the hand and Kamal Singh again fired on Sanjay at back. After that, Dashrath Singh filed an FIR in the police Station and police recorded the case under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code.
After investigation was done, sheet was charged for offences under section 302, 302/34. All the accused were arrested. The body of Sanjay Alias Baba was sent to the postmortem. Inside the Sanjay bullets were found, clothes were stained from blood and from soil. Accused pleaded not guilty.
ISSUES RAISED
Q. Whether, the death of Sanjay Alias Baba, a deceased person, was homicidal in nature or not?
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER
Guilty will not be pleaded to the accused. Accused person given the statement were recorder under the section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accused pleaded that by mistake there is an implication in the case due to pervious conflict. Accused person did not look out for any witness for leading any kind of defence evidence. In order to prove the case, prosecution investigated 15 witness. When the investigation got completed, charges sheet in the connection crime no. 84/2007 for the cases under the sections 302, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w under section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and the case was committed to the special court and Arms Act was charges under the section 25/27.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
For the state, the learned council submitted that the case has been proven guilt beyond the reasonable doubt of all the accused person. Submission of the FIR was register without any hinder, which shows the accuracy of the prosecution of cases. Witness finds the confirmation from FIR and from medical evidence in the oral evidence of prosecution. If me witness is present in their field is natural.
When Panjab Singh PW4 and the Kalyan Singh PW11 reached where they have to go, there they find that accused person were make a run from the sport and going towards the fields of agriculture, as per the Indian Evidence Act, their evidence is applicable.
He supported the query judgement of conviction and sentence and there was a submission of being no affirmity in the query of judgement and sentence and in these court interference is not require and the trial court finding have arrived. Heard that the learned council persued the record for the parties. Therefore, in the present case contention become advance. The word “knowledge” assigned in the criminal means meaning of the clause given secondly section 300 Indian Penal Code imports kind of a certainty but not a probability. Accordingly, it cannot do that injury caused by the appellant is with the intention of causing body injury.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The judgement of sentence and conviction, is submitted for the appellants by the learned counsel that the evidence that was produced before has been considered by the trial court it has lot of omissions and contradictions between the statements that was recorded by the witness under the section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and in the court statements. By the accused persons the complaint party had an enmity. Since, the witnesses haven’t tried to interfere in the matter, so their conduct would be considered as unnatural, which shows that at that time they were not there when the incident happened.
Hence, conviction of the appellant is not good in the eyes of law and the evidence of prosecution is a little bit shaky. Also, the medical evidence hasn’t confirmed the evidence taken orally of the witness. Further, it was submitted that Panjab Singh PW4 and Kalyan Singh PW11, these are not eyewitness also after one month delay their statements were recorded and for delay there was no explanation prosecution have explained and evidence is also not reliable.
No record was there to prove that every accused person had done a crime with a common intention of the deceased person. So, the offences that have been committed earlier of the conviction of appellants is not satisfactory in the eyes of law. Hence, sentence that has been passed by the trial court and the conviction by impugned judgement is to be set aside.
CONCLUSION
At the end it concluded that the accused appellants are directly getting surrender who those are on bail immediately prior the remaining part of that sentence of jail the trial court is serving. The outcome of their appeal the accused appellants has been intimated and superintendent of jail is concerned. Along with the trial court the copy of order has been also sent for the trial court for compliance and information.
REFERENCE
This article was written by Anjali Agarwal student of GLA University and intern in Legal Vidhiya.
