Ranjit Singh & Ors vs State Of M.P

Nagu and Gangaram (PW.24) were assaulted by the accused persons with lathis and were asked the whereabouts of Shantilal, Shambhu and Mohan. Nagu disclosed that Shantilal was in village Bamankhedi and Shambhu, Kailash and Mohan were in village Budheda. The accused persons wrongly confined Nagu inside the house of Nandu and took away Gangaram (PW.24) with them. They brought Shantilal in a 2 tractor in the night at 2 A.M. and put him inside the room with Nagu and locked the room from outside. On the next day, i.e., 20.1.1988 at about 8-9 A.M., they brought Kailash (PW.25), Shambhu and Gangaram (PW.24) and confined them also in the same room along with Nagu and Shantilal. After some time, they took all of them to the well of Gopal Maharaj situated at village Panched and the accused persons assaulted Shantilal with lathis as a consequence of which Shantilal became unconscious. Kailash (PW.25) and Shambhu were also assaulted. Again they took Shantilal (in unconscious condition) in the field of one Dhula Chowkidar and they assaulted Shantilal, Kailash (PW.25) and Shambhu with lathis. Shantilal died on the spot. Shambhu also received grievous injuries on his person. The accused persons left the injured persons and moved to a distance watching for the consequences. After some time, the accused persons reached near Shantilal and checked whether he was dead or alive and once they were satisfied that Shantilal was no more, they fled. (B) The FIR lodged by the complainant, Nagu was recorded by SHO Govardhan Singh (PW.30) vide Ex.P-63. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava (PW.29) and another Police Officer reached the spot and found Shantilal dead whereas Shambhu, Gangaram (PW.24) and 3 Kailash (PW.25) were lying there in injured condition. Shailendra Kumar Shrivastava (PW.29) prepared the inquest (Ex.P-5) of the deceased Shantilal, seized blood-stained cloth, and collected earth and blood-stained earth. He sent the dead body of Shantilal for post- mortem examination. The injured persons, namely, Nagu, Shambhu, Kailash (PW.25) and Gangaram (PW.24) were sent for medical examination to Government Hospital, Ratlam. Kanhaiya Lal Dharia, Naib Tehsildar (PW.26) recorded the statement of the injured witness, Kailash (PW.25). On 21.1.1988, Dr. M.A. Qureshi (PW.1) performed the autopsy of the deceased Shantilal and prepared the report (Ex.P-3). He also examined on the same day the injured Kailash (PW.25) and Nagu. On the same day, i.e., 21.1.1988 Dr. Virendra Singh (PW.15) examined Shambhu and also took his X-ray and found fractures of the fifth metacarpal bone of left hand, right humerus and radius bones. On the same day, Dr. Jayant Mukund Subedar (PW.16) medically examined Shambhu. However, he died in the night at 11.25 P.M. in the hospital. Dr. Jayant Mukund also examined Gangaram (PW.24). Dr. Uday Yarde (PW.17) performed post mortem of the deceased Shambhu and prepared the post-mortem report.

4 (C) The investigation proceeded, a large number of persons were apprehended and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against 34 persons out of which two, namely, Vikram Singh (A.33) and Ranjit, son of Rattan Lal Patidar (A.34) died during the trial and thus, the remaining 32 accused were put to trial. The prosecution examined in total 31 witnesses and got 79 documents proved. The trial court vide judgment and order dated 8.2.1995 acquitted 22 accused and convicted 10 including the present appellants.

(D) All the said 10 convicts preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.149 and 180 of 1995. Both the said appeals were heard together and disposed of by common judgment and order dated 20.10.2005. The High Court acquitted two accused/appellants, namely, Pooran Das (A.2) and Mukesh (A.20). However, it dismissed the appeal of the remaining 8 appellants maintaining their conviction and sentences. Out of the said 8 accused, only 5 convicts approached this Court by filing this appeal and Bagadi Ram Das (A.1), Kamal Das (A.12) and Ratan (A.24) did not prefer any special leave petition against the confirmation of their conviction by the High Court. During the pendency of this appeal, Gopal Das (A.17) died. So, at present, we are concerned only with 5 four appellants, namely, Ranjit Singh (A.3), Balaram (A.14), Ramchandra (A.18) and Shambhu (A.22).

4. On the contrary, Shri C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that no case was pending against the deceased/complainant party and none of them had been absconding. The appellants had caused injuries which were sufficient to cause death of two persons. The appellants also caused injuries to the other eye-witness. Statement of Kailash (PW.25) was recorded by a Magistrate under the apprehension of his death, so his statement is to be considered as a statement made under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 7 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.). Deposition of the injured witnesses is to be given due weightage. The Court has a duty to separate the grain from the chaff and in case, some of the accused persons had been acquitted by the trial court and some by the High Court, that does not mean that the deposition of the witnesses cannot be relied upon for conviction of the appellants. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

28. Injuries:

30. The statement of Kailash (PW.25) had been recorded by the Magistrate under the apprehension that he may die. Therefore, his evidence is to be given due weightage, as per the law referred to hereinbefore, and generally cannot be brushed aside on any ground.

35. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal lacks merit and, is accordingly, dismissed.

.................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) ..............................

...J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, October 27, 2010 2