HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE (DIVISION BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE S.K.SETH AND Mr. JUSTICE M.C.GARG) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615 of 2001 (1) Nagulal S/o Mannaji Aged 20 years (2) Kalu S/o Mannaji Aged 22 years (3) Mannaji S/o Laxman Aged 50 years All R/o of village Dhulet District Ujjain. ......Appellants Vs. State of M.P. through P.S. Mahidpur District Ujjain. .....Respondent J U D G M E N T ( Delivered on 11 th November 2011 ) Per Seth, J:- Nagulal, Kalu and Mannaji were tried together in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. no. 193 of 2000. They were found guilty of murder of Ranchhod, and as a consequence they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Admittedly, incident took place on 16.3.2000. Ranchhod (since deceased) was the son- in-law of appellant No. 3 Mannaji and appellant No. 1 and 2 are his sons. 3. According to prosecution story, on the fateful day Ranchhod accompanied by his father Narsingh (P.W.4) had come to bring back his wife Kalabai. It seems that there was exchange of hot words, and Mannaji gave axe blows on the head of Ranchhod. He fell down and then Nagulal and Kalu thrashed him with lathies. Narsingh (P.W.4) saw the murderous assault and ran for his life. Narsingh (P.W.4) went and lodged the First Information Report which set the investigation rolling. Police came to spot and sent the dead body for the postmortem. An inquest and merg inquiry was held. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellants. At trial, appellants denied the charge. Appellant Nagulal took the plea of self defense; Kalu and Mannaji plea of alibi. They also examined six witnesses in defense so as to match the number of prosecution witness. 4. Considering the evidence that is on record, learned trial court found appellants guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder and accordingly sentenced them with life imprisonment by the impugned judgment. 5. Before us it is not disputed that Ranchhod died a homicidal death because of injuries found on corpse. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Singhal (P.W.3) is the autopsy surgeon. He noticed, at the time of autopsy, as many as 13 ante-mortem injuries on the dead body. In his opinion, mode of death was shock due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object. The post- mortem report is Ex. P. 11. He was also of the opinion that fatal injury could be caused by the blunt side of the axe or lathies. (See Ex.P. 13). The evidence of Doctor is very clear and lead 2 only to one conclusion that the deceased died a homicidal death. 6. Next question is whether appellants are guilty of the charge brought against them. In this connection prosecution examined Narsingh (P.W.4), father of the deceased. He is the sole eye-witness of the entire incident. He withstood the cross-examination. Before lodging the First Information Report, he disclosed the incident to Ramchandra (P.W.5) without any add-on. Ramchandra (P.W.5) corroborates evidence of Narsinghs (P.W.4) in material particulars and supports the prosecution case. 7. It is against this back ground let us examine the defense evidence. Prabhudas (D.W.1) is a neighboring cultivator. He claims to be an eye-witness to the incident but he admitted that he made no previous statement to Police about the incident. According to this witness only Kalabai and Nagulal were present at the spot when deceased came brandishing a knife. He does not say Kalabai sustained any knife injury before she left the deceased and Nagulal to sort-out matter between them. This version of the incident is disclosed for the first time by the witness in his deposition in court. On the other hand Mangusingh (D.W.6) would have us believe that deceased came to spot and dragged Kalabai and inflicted knife injuries before Nagulal intervened and assaulted deceased in self defense. This is also not the version of Kalabai (D.W.4) that she sustained any knife injury. There is no medical evidence on record to show 3 that either Nagulal or Kalabai sustained any kind of injury. Kalabai is obviously torn between her loyalty towards her dead husband and filial love and affection for brothers. She took the pragmatic approach to avoid bringing her father and brothers to the book. Her evidence shows that she is not telling true story. It is quite unusual for a woman with advance pregnancy to take goats for grazing especially when other family members are available to perform this chore. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no fault with judgment of the trial court to take a different view of the matter. At trial, learned Sessions Judge, accepted the prosecution evidence against appellants. Accordingly found them guilty of offence charged against them. Nothing could be shown from the side of the defense, which could lead to an inference that the incident did not occur at the place and at the time, when it is said to have occurred, as a consequence of which it could possibly be said that accused have been falsely implicated, on suspicion. When there is direct evidence, such arguments cannot be entertained unless supported by strong evidence. 9. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal, therefore appeal stands dismissed. (S.K.SETH.J) (M.C.GARG J.) BDJ 4