2 Cr. A. No.427/2008The prosecution story in brief is that in the intervening night of 14th and 15th November, 2005 one Vijay informed the complainant Bhimrao that the appellant committed murder of Vinod.Hence, the complainant Bhimrao and his family members went to the house of appellant situated at Panchsheel Nagar and found that Vinod was lying dead.One Anil Tatya was also present there, who has been assaulted by the appellant.He informed that the appellant killed Vinod by inflicting blows of stone on his head.Bhimrao lodged the FIR at Police Station, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal.The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.The trial Court relied the testimonies of injured eye-witnesse Anil (PW-5) and eye-witness Vijay (PW-4).The appellant called him and directed to bring some goods.When Vinod objected for the same, the appellant abused him.He caught hold his collar of the deceased and threatened him.They separated them.Thereafter, Vinod and his friends came to drop him in the house.The house of appellant was adjacent to the house of Vinod.The appellant again abused them.After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.It was held that the ocular evidence of aforesaid witnesses was corroborated by Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-11) and Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW-2).Hence, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.The accused challenging the findings of learned trial Court on the grounds that the prosecution witnesses Vijay (PW-4) and Anil (PW-5) had good relations with the deceased Vinod.The trial Court wrongly ignored 3 Cr. A. No.427/2008 the material contradiction or omission in the prosecution evidence.Hence, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and further prayed for his acquittal from the charges levelled against him.3 Cr. A. No.427/2008We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.We have perused the record and by carefully scanning the statements of Anil (PW-5) and Vijay (PW-4), we find that at the time of incident, their presence on the spot is quite natural and reliable.Vijay (PW-4) was cousin brother of the deceased.He has stated that, on the date of incident i.e. on 14 th November, 2005 at about 9:00-9:30 p.m. he was standing near the STD shop along with Vinod (since deceased) and 2-3 other boys.Pankaj and Lalit tried to settle their quarrel.Thereafter, the deceased and appellant both had collected Rs.100/- for drinking liquor.Vijay (PW-4) further deposed that he came back to his home for sleeping.At about 1:30-2:00 am in the midnight, the appellant threw stone on his door.When Vijay came to his door, he saw that Anil (PW-5) was 4 Cr. A. No.427/2008 coming out from the house of appellant and he shouted that the appellant inflicted blow of stone (Alanga) on the head of deceased.Thereafter, the appellant rushed towards Anil (PW-5) to assault him.After sometime, the appellant came back to his home and threatened Vijay (PW-4) not go to his house, otherwise he will be killed as Vinod has been killed.Due to fear of the appellant, Vijay (PW-4) went to his uncle Bhimrao's house and informed the incident.They went altogether to the house of appellant and found that Vinod was lying inside the house of appellant.He had sustained injuries.Thereafter, they took injured Vinod to the "1250-Hospital", where the duty doctor declared him dead.The testimony of Vijay (PW-4) is duly corroborated by Anil (PW-5) and partly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses.4 Cr. A. No.427/2008Anil (PW-5) is an injured eye-witness.He witnessed the incident.He has stated that at the time of incident, Vinod was sleeping due to the effect of liquor.state of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288 observing as follows: Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone."5 Cr. A. No.427/2008Dr. D.S. Badkul (PW-2) conducted postmortem of body of deceased Vinod and found the following injuries:-(i) Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 2 cm., vertical on right mastoid just post to pinna along with contusion of 8 cm.x 6 cm.on right pinna on mastoid region.Clotted blood present,(ii) Contusion 3 cm.diameter on right forehead, 2 cm.above the lateral end of right eyebrow, 7 Cr. A. No.427/20087 Cr. A. No.427/2008(iii) Depressed fracture 8 c.m. x 1 cm.present on left temporal parietal bone just above the pinna of ear,(iv) Depressed fracture size of 6 c.m. x 4 cm.on right temporal region,(v) Dura mater tense, brain swellen Difference subdural hemorrhage present on left hemisphere all over on right occipital and temporal lobes and on all over the cerebellum,(vi) Base of skull fractured from right to left involving right spleen.Dr. D.S. Badkur (PW-2) opined that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia, as a result of aspiration of blood due to head injuries.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were homicidal in nature and sufficient to cause death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature.Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-12) medically examined the witness Anil and found the following injuries:-8 Cr. A. No.427/2008As per opinion of Dr. M.S. Khan (PW-12), all the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.Therefore, above medical evidence are duly supported the prosecution story.There is no inconsistency in ocular evidence and medical evidence.Hence, we find that the prosecution has duly proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Generally, at about 1:30-2:00 a.m., in the midnight, at the time of incident, an independent witness is not available.to 8 cm.Due to such injuries, the deceased sustained two fractures on his head.One was about 8 cm.x 1 cm.and another was depressed fracture about 6 cm.x 4 cm.over both ear.In injury no.6, the base of skull was also found broken.All the injuries were inflicted on vital part of the deceased.Force was used by the appellant with intention to kill the deceased.He used a heavy stone for assaulting the deceased.Then, he proceeded to the spot at Panchsheel Nagar.On the spot, he registered Dehatinalishi Ex.P/1 as per information given by Bhimrao.N.K. Saxena (PW-13) prepared spot map Ex.P/2, which undisputedly indicated that incident took place at the house of the appellant.On 15.11.2005 he recorded the statements of Vijay (PW-4) and Anil (PW-5).On the same day, he seized the stone, knife on the basis of memorandum (Ex.P/7) of the appellant.These articles were found stained on the blood.He prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/15)."Evidence of police personnel were made recovery witnesses.Their evidence is reliable and cannot be discarded even though large number of people were available."12 Cr. A. No.427/2008In our opinion, case of the appellant clearly comes under the purview of murder, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the same.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal has no merit to interfere in the impugned judgment.Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code