Appeal against conviction for murder of an eleven-month-old daughter. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding, rejecting appellant's plea of reasonable doubt and concluding the act was a brutal murder.
Impugned judgment affirmed; appellant to be arrested and sent to jail to complete sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
lu‘é
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER J
Criminal Appeal No. 3208 of 1999
APPELLANT
Lala Mukunda @ Mukunda
VERSUS
RESPONDENT
State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG.)
Smt. Savita Tiwari counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay PL for the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
(01.09.2014)
'appeal This arises out of judgment and order dated 04.10.1999 passedbyAdditionalSessionsJudge, Biiaspur in Sessions Trial No. 39/1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with tine of Rs. 2,000l—, plus default stipulations.
Z
‘ ‘
‘J
the housealongwithhertwochildren.However,theaccused/appellant did not allowhiswifetotakedeceasedMayabaiwithherandkepther with him. lt is alleged that at about 5 PM as the deceased was weeping, the accused/appellant lifted her up and struck againstthe by leg as a result of which she died. Thereafter, the ground i accused/appellant is allegedtohavetakenoutthecrow—barfrom his house and forced it in her private part. Based on this FIR, offence underSection302IPCwasregisteredagainsttheaccused/appellant for theoffenceunderSection302 IPC. Postmortem examinationon the bddyofthedeceasedwasconductedon13.12.1998byDr.G.S. Kanwar (PW-10)who gavehisreportEx.l5-14opiningthathenoticed four injuriesonher personincludingheadandthecauseofdeathwas shock due to haemorrhage and head injuries. After investigation, charge-sheetwas filed againstthe accused/appellantundersection 302 IPCandthenthechargetoowasframedaccordingly.
3
Shyamabai (PW-3)butasnumberofcontradictionsandomissionsare there in her statement, it would not be safe to hold the accused/appeiiant guiltyonthebasisofsuchunreliabieevidence.This apart, accordingtothecounselfortheaccused/appellant, most of the prosecutionwitnesseshavenotsupportedthecaseoftheprosecution and in these circumstances, conviction of the accused/appellant becomes unsustainable in the eye of law. According to her, as the accused/appellantturnedviolentafterhiswifeleftthehouse,hisactin killing the deceased on account of sudden subjection to his uncontrolled passiondoesnotfallwithintheambitofSection302IPC. 6. On the otherhandcounselfortherespondent/Statesupportsthe impugned and submits that conviction of the judgment accused/appellant is based on the evidence collected by the prosecutionandtheapproachofthetrialCourtin its appreciationand resultantconclusiondoesnotsufferfromanylegalflaw.
I:
q
@
is the witnesswho had conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceasedand givenhisreportEx.P-14.According tothis witness, he noticedlaceratedwoundonthe left side of ear, swelling over face, lacerationovervaginalcanalandhymenetc.andthecause of death wasshockdue to haemorrhageand head injuries. Brajpal - the witness who lodged the FIR Ex. P-1 has not supported (PW—1) the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. He however has admitted his signatures on the FIR and the seizure memo“ Ex. P-2 and P-3. Shyambai (PW—2) — wife of the accused/appellanthasalsonotsupportedthecaseoftheprosecution and has turnedhostile.Shehoweverhasstatedthatwhensheleftthe house, deceasedwasalive.BoondKunwar(PW-4),Sonkunwar(PW- 5), Anantbai (PW-6),Maniyaribai (PW-7)andRamlal(PW-12)havenot supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Devcharan (PW-8)thoughhasbeendeclared hostile, he has stated that the inquest wasmade in his presencevide Ex. P—10. Dr. H.D. Dahire (PW-11)isthewitnesswhoha‘dmedicallyexaminedmotherof the accused/appellantvideEX.P-15andnoticedswellingonherright leg for which x—ray was advised. R.K. Sharma (PW-14) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution.MalikramRatre(PW—15)isthewitnesswhodidpartofthe investigation.
m w 5m ’ a amgjf
(PW-3),theaccused/appellantwasseenbyherdippingtenderaged “shanti Mayabai in the village pondamidstchanting of hymns guru, shanti guru”andthen about half an hour thereafter, Brajpal (PW-1) informed her about the death of deceased Mayabai. Statement of -— wife of the accused/appeilant that the deceased Shyam'bai (PW-2) died on account of drowning in the pond, does not appear to be correct because the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination noticed four injuries on her body including fracture on head and brain material hadcomeout.Accordingtodoctor(PW-10), he also noticedijies nurinthevaginalwallandhymenofthedeceased. This apart,thedeceasedwasinthecustodyofth e accused/appellant and thereforeitwashewhocould h ave been thebest persontoknow as to how the deceaeds died but he has not offered any such explanation. All these circumstancesthusindicatethat it is nonebt u the aocused/appeatlinalon e who has put a n end to thelifeofatender aged girl b efore shecouldseethewonderfl ucreationof n ature from her owneyes.Thisistheheighto f brutality withnoroomforsympathy.
I 9 . Appealbeingfullofdemeritsonly is liable fordismissal.Order r accordingly. Judgmentimpugned gets affirmed.Appellant is on bila hw which is herebycancelle. dLethebearrestedandsenttojailfortith to completethesentenceimposedonhi. m
Sd/, I Chief Justice
Sdl— PritinkerDiwakel' Judge
Hi. l l
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable given contradictions in prosecution witness evidence and hostile witnesses.
Whether the trial court's finding that the accused murdered his infant daughter on account of uncontrolled passion was supported by evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lala Mukunda @ Mukunda
State of Madhya Pradesh (now CG.)
Yatindra Singh
Pritinker Diwakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
