1 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE I.S. SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.153/2004 .........Appellant Ramkumar son of Sakku Ahirwar aged 25 years, resident of Village Semai Police Station Civil Line, Datia, Distt. Datia. Versus .......Respondent State of M.P. through police Station Civil Lines, Datia M.P. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V.K.Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri A.K.Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T (1/12/2011) This appeal has been filed by appellant Ramkumar being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.2.04 passed by ASJ, Seonda, Datia, in S.T.No.174/00, by which appellant Ramkumar has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/-. 2. According to prosecution story, on 25.7.00 at about 8 am Ramnath was planting a Jamun tree at his land, at that time, accused Shivdayal, Ramkumar, Seetaram and Sarman came there and objected to it and abused him and stated that why he is planting tree in their land. He replied that you have closed my way 2 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 and he is planting the three at his land. Thereafter, Ramkumar with intention to kill him assaulted by axe on his head which caused bleeding injury. Accused Seetaram, Sarman and Shivdayal assaulted by lathis on his legs. On his cries, her daughter Janki, brother Itwari, Rajjan Dangi and other persons came there, then accused persons ran away. Thereafter, police reached on the spot and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12) was recorded by Shri B.P.Kachhware (PW-11) at about 9.30 a.m. on the same day. On the basis of which FIR (Ex.P/21) at Crime No.85/2000 was registered under Sections 307, 323 and 294/34 of IPC. After investigation, Challan was filed against accused Shivdayal, Sarman, Seetaram and Ramkumar. After trial, Shivdayal, Sarman and Seetaram have been acquitted by the trial Court and appellant Ramkumar has been convicted as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 3. It has been argued by the appellant's counsel that Ramnath (PW-8) was a deaf and dumb witness and as per his statement, he was unable to speak after the incident and he was unable to lodge the FIR. In cross-examination, he has admitted that FIR was not lodged by him, but by his brother. The Court has also noted the fact that Ramnath (PW-8) was a deaf and dumb witness, hence, his evidence was recorded with the help of Girish Chandra Tiwari, teacher in the Government Deaf and Dumb School, Gwalior, but no oath was administered to Shri Girish Chandra Tiwari and the signs and gestures used by him for his statement were not taken on record. When the witness was deaf, how could he understand 3 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 the questions. From the statement of Ramnath, it also reveals that he was a literate person and was educated upto 5th class, hence, his statement could have been recorded by writing, but no finding was given to this fact that he was not able to write. Hence, his statement was recorded with the help of other person Shri Girish Chandra Tiwari. The statement of Ramnath (PW-8) does not inspire confidence for the conviction of the appellant because he has stated that appellant Ramkumar inflicted two axe blows on his head, while only one incised wound was found on his head. He has also deposed that his forearm and elbow were fractured at two places, but this fact is not supported by medical evidence and no such injury was found on the elbow and forearm of Ramnath. The other witnesses are the interested witnesses and they are not reliable. Janki Devi (PW-2) is the daughter of Ramnath, Savitri (PW-3) is the wife of Ramnath, Babulal (PW-4) is the father of Ramnath and Itwari (PW-6) and Asharam (PW-7) are the real brothers of Ramnath. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution in this case and the witnesses who are said to be the independent witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. An axe was seized on the information of Ramkumar for which memo Ex.P/6 was prepared and in furtherance of it after seizure of the axe, seizure memo Ex.P/8 was prepared, but it was not proved by the prosecution evidence and the axe was not produced at the time of evidence. Hence, the seizure of the axe was not legally proved. Therefore, 4 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 the appeal should be allowed. 4. It has been argued by respondent's counsel that the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it. The statement of Ramnath was recorded with the help of interpreter legally and the case was proved on the basis of statement of Ramnath and other evidence. The statements were supported by the medical evidence. The appeal being devoid of merits, be dismissed accordingly. 5. Considered the arguments and perused the record of the trial Court. 6. From the spot map (Ex.P-14), it reveals that the place of incident is not adjacent to the house of Ramnath and the door of the house of Ramnath is in the opposite direction of the place of incident. On the backside of the house of Ramnath, houses of Shivdayal and Sarman are situated and on the backside of their houses, there is an open land where Ramnath was planting the tree and he was assaulted at this place. From the house of Ramnath, it is not possible to view the place of incident. There is a lane before the houses of Shivdayal and Sarman which is in the backside of the house of Ramnath and from there the lane has to be crossed from the front side of the houses of Shivdayal and Sarman and then after reaching on the spot, the place of incident can be viewed. It was not possible from the house of Ramnath to view the place of incident. 7. Janki Devi (PW-2), daughter of Ramnath, has deposed that 5 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 her father was planting a tree. On this point, there was a dispute and she witnessed the incident and saw that Ramkumar assaulted her father by axe. In cross-examination, she deposed that hearing the noise, she came out of the house and saw that Ramkumar assaulted two blows of axe on his father, but this fact is not mentioned in her police statement (Ex.D/1). Ramnath (PW-8) in cross-examination has deposed that he was assaulted by only one blow of axe, hence, the statement of this witness is not reliable. 8. Savitri (PW-3) is the wife of Ramnath. According to her statement, at the time of incident, she was at home and hearing the noise, she went to the spot and saw that her husband was being assaulted by the accused persons. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she reached on the spot after the incident and thereafter further she states that she reached on the spot at the time of the assault, but again she has deposed that when she reached on the spot, the assailants were running away. This shows that she was not an eye-witness of the incident. 9. Babulal (PW-4) is the father of Ramnath. He deposed that at the time of incident, he was sitting in the veranda of his house and he viewed the incident from there and further he has deposed that none came to the spot. In cross-examination, he has admitted that from the place where he resides, the hut of pigs is not visible and from his house, the place of incident is not visible. He has further admitted in the cross-examination that his age is 82 to 85 years, while according to assessment of the Court at the time of incident 6 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 his age has been mentioned as 60 years. He has further deposed that he feels some difficulty in movement and he has deposed the facts of the case as per the information received from other persons. 10. Itwari (PW-6) is the real brother of Ramnath and he deposed that at the time of incident he was at his home and on the cries of his niece Janki, he reached on the spot and saw that Ramkumar after assault was taking out the axe. As soon as he reached there, the assailants ran away. Thereafter, he took his brother to Datia for treatment and then from Datia to Gwalior. In cross- examination, he deposed that at the spot none reached except his brother Asharam. This contradicts the reliability of the statements of Janki (PW-2), Savitri (PW-3), Babulal (PW-4) because as per their statements, they all reached on the spot, but this witness has not supported this fact. 11. Asharam (PW-7) is the real brother of Ramnath. According to him, at the time of cries of daughter of Ramnath, he was in his house. Thereafter, he reached on the spot and saw that Ramkumar assaulted by axe on Ramnath which caused injury in his head and other assailants assaulted by lathi. When he reached on the spot, the accused persons ran away. In cross-examination, he has deposed that after hearing the noise, in 1 and 2 minutes he reached on the spot and saw the assailants running away. Further, he has stated that he also saw them assaulting, but he has deposed that lathis were assaulted on the waist, legs and backside 7 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 which is not the version of other eye-witnesses. He has also deposed that on the spot only Rajjan Dangi and no other person reached. He went to the hospital with Ramnath and Itwari. In cross-examination, he has deposed that all the accused persons assaulted 6-6, 7-7 lathis, but this is not the prosecution story. It seems that being the real brother of Ramnath, this witness has tried to be an eye-witness, but he is not reliable. 12. Rajjan (PW-9) has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story and denied to be the eye-witness of the incident. In this way, all these witnesses, who are the family members of Ramnath (PW-8), have deposed as they are the witnesses of prosecution. 13. Shri B.P.Kachhware (PW-11), the investigating Officer, has deposed in cross-examination that from the house of Ramnath to reach the place of incident, lane has to be crossed. From the house of Ramnath, the place of incident is not visible. He has accepted that after departure of the assailants from the spot, Savitri, Janki, Asharam, Babulal and Rajjan came on the spot. This shakes the reliability of the evidence of Janki Devi (PW-2), Savitri (PW-3), Babulal (PW-4), Itwari (PW-6) and Asharam (PW-7). Hence, their statements are not reliable. 14. As regards the statement of Ramnath (PW-8), a note has been appended by the Court before starting of his statement that this witness is deaf and dumb, hence, the statement has been recorded by signs and gestures with the help of Girish Chandra 8 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 Tiwari, teacher of Deaf and Dumb School, Gwalior and as per the meaning expressed by Girish Chandra Tiwari, the statement of the witness has been recorded. From the order-sheet dated 11.12.02, it reveals that statement of Ramnath was recorded with the help of Girish Chandra Tiwari, but this fact has not been mentioned that he was given any oath in this respect. From the statement of Ramnath (PW-8), it does not reveal that any note was provided by Girish Chandra Tiwari about the signs and gestures used by him for the statement of Ramnath. It seems that whatever has been explained by Girish Chandra Tiwari has been noted down as the evidence of Ramnath (PW-8). In the case of Vinod v. State of M.P., 2010(1)JLJ 346, it has been held that at the time of recording of the statement of a deaf and dumb witness if the signs and gestures have not been recorded and only the interpretation has been recorded and oath was not administered to the interpreter, then such evidence is not legal evidence. Therefore, prima facie the evidence of Ramnath (PW-8) is not legal evidence in the eye of law. 15. As regards Dehati Nalishi which was recorded by Ramnath (PW-8), it has been mentioned in his statement that Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12) was read over to him and he accepted it to be lodged by him, but it is also to be considered that when at the time of lodging of the Dehati Nalishi Ramnath was deaf and dumb, then how could he listen the contents of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12). Hence, this fact is not reliable. About lodging of the Dehati Nalishi, in cross- 9 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 examination, he has admitted that report was lodged with the help of his brother. Further he admitted the fact that at the time of the report, he was unconscious and report was lodged by his brother. Further, the witness was asked whether at the time of lodging of Dehati Nalishi he was in a position to speak, the witness has replied that at the time of lodging of the Dehati Nalishi, he was not capable to speak. This shows that Dehati Nalishi was not lodged by Ramnath and it was lodged by his brother, while from the perusal of Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12), it reveals that it was recorded only on oral dictation of Ramnath. 16. Shri Sultan Singh Rawat (PW-12) has deposed in this respect that on 25.7.2000 he was station officer of police Station, Civil Lines, Datia, and he reached at the house of Ramnath and as per his instructions, he lodged the Dehati Nalishi which bears his signature. In cross-examination, again he has replied that as per the dictation of Ramnath, he noted it. But when Ramnath himself has deposed this fact that at the time of lodging of Dehati Nalishi, he was not in a position to speak and Dehati Nalishi was lodged by his brother, this fact is not reliable. 17. Asharam (PW-7) in this respect has deposed that he and Itwari took Ramnath to Datia hospital. Rajjan (PW-9) though has turned hostile, but has deposed in this respect in cross- examination that Ramnath was lying unconscious in the village. He took him directly to hospital by his tractor. Itwari came to call him and thereafter he took him to Datia hospital and Ramnath was 10 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 unconscious till they reached hospital. Ramnath (PW-8) has also deposed in this respect in cross-examination that after the assault, he became unconscious and his senses came back at police station, but in this case, Dehati Nalishi was lodged in the village at his home. Hence, there was no opportunity of reaching this witness to police Station. In this way, all these circumstances, create a suspicion about lodging of Dehati Nalishi by Ramnath himself, therefore, Dehati Nalishi was not proved and is not reliable. 18. Ramnath (PW-8) about the incident deposed that in the incident his forearm and elbow were fractured at two places, but this fact has not been supported by the medical evidence. He was assaulted by Ramkumar by axe on his head. This axe was seized during the investigation on his information for which memo (Ex.P/6) was prepared and by seizure (Ex.P/8) the axe was seized. Panchu (PW-5) the witness of memo and seizure has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution story. The other independent witness Motilal has not been examined by the prosecution. In this respect, B.P. Kachhware (PW-11) has deposed that on the information of Ramkumar he prepared memo (Ex.P/6) and seizure was made by Ex.P/8. He has not specifically mentioned that axe was seized by Ex.P/8. The seized axe was not produced at the time of evidence. Therefore, the seizure of axe was not legally proved as held in the case of Raju Dubey v. State of M.P., 1998(1) JLJ 236. It was the duty of the prosecution when 11 Cri. Appeal No.153/04 the axe was seized to prove that by this axe the injuries of Ramnath could be caused for which the prosecution failed. Hence, it cannot be said that by seized axe Ramnath was assaulted by appellant Ramkumar. 19. Therefore, on the basis of above discussion, I conclude that the eye-witnesses are not reliable as they were not on the spot and as per the statement of Investigating Officer B.P.Kachhware (PW-11) and FIR was not proved, as at the time of lodging of the FIR complainant Ramnath (PW-8) was not in a position to speak. The statement of Ramnath (PW-8) was not recorded as per the procedure and no oath was administered to interpreter Shri Girish Chandra Tiwari and no record was received from him about the signs and gestures used by him during the statement. Under these circumstances, the sole statement of Ramnath about the incident is not reliable and does not inspire confidence for the conviction of the appellant. The memo and seizure of the axe were not proved, hence, it cannot be said that by the seized axe, appellant Ramkumar assaulted complainant Ramnath. Under these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to be convicted. 20. Therefore, on the basis of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 307 of IPC. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine amount if deposited by him be refunded to him. (I.S.Shrivastava) Judge ms/-