Jagdish Mishra Vs The State of M.P. & Another

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Hakam Singh was missing on 18/03/2005 near about 7.00 PM and on 19/03/2005 near about 7.00 AM in the court yard of Hakam Singh, his aunt Ganga Bai (PW-8) found three letters in which ransom was demanded to get back Hakam Singh alive with threatening that he will be killed if any information is given to the police. Thereafter some efforts were made to search him. Thereafter on the same day senior member of the house Bhan Singh (PW-5) went to the police station Pathariya District Damoh along with aforesaid three letters and lodged the report about in the incident and handed over aforesaid three letters to the police and police recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-2 and seized aforesaid three letters. On the basis of aforesaid information, FIR (Ex.P-13) was registered at Crime No.73/2005 for the offences punishable under section 364(A) of IPC. On 22/03/2005 dead body of Hakam Singh was found in the field of Ghandharv Singh of Village Pathariya under the cover of ''Bhusaa'' and body was badly smelling. On post mortem, it was found that death of Hakam Singh was taken place on account of strangulation 3-4 days before. During investigation Halki Bai @ Geeta Bai (PW-2), Narayan Singh (PW-2) and Devendra (PW-7) disclosed that on 18/03/2005 near about 7.00 to 7.30 PM, the deceased Hakam Singh was seen alive with the appellant/accused and thereafter dead body of Hakam Singh was found. The appellant/accused was arrested on 27/03/2005 and from his possession one note book Article B was seized and seizure memo Ex.P-9 was prepared. During the investigation with the permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate sample of handwriting of the accused was taken and the seized letters and note book Article B and samples of handwriting were sent for handwriting expert report of the questioned documents to the State Examiner, Government of M.P.

3. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh and case was committed to the Sessions Court and report of the handwriting expert Ex.P-116 was received. According to the report of handwriting expert, the aforesaid letters with regard to the demand of ransom were found to be written by the person who written note book Article B and sample handwriting. The learned Trial court framed charges under sections 364(A), 302 and 201 of the IPC against the appellant/accused and his plea was recorded. He abjured the guilt and claimed trial.

4. The learned Trial court after completing the trial, recorded finding of conviction of appellant for the offence punishable under sections 364(A), 302, and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above. The learned Trial court recorded aforesaid finding of conviction mainly based on the circumstantial evidence of last seen of deceased Hakam Singh alive in company of the appellant and letters written by the appellant/accused with regard to demand of Rs.50,000/- for getting back Hakam Singh alive.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid finding of learned trial court on the ground that the evidence with regard to the last seen of deceased in the company of appellant/accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the report of handwriting expert is also not true and believable as appellant have been asked to copy down by the police forcibly and they are fabricated. Hence it cannot be said that prosecution has proved charges beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence the appeal be allowed and appellant/accused be acquitted.

6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we found that in this case there is no controversy with regard to finding of dead body of the deceased Hakam Singh on 22/03/2005 in the field of Gandharv Singh of village Pathariya and the dead body was covered with ''Bhusaa'' and bad smell was coming and this fact has been proved by the testimony of Narayan Singh (PW-3) and N.S. Bais (PW-15) Investigating Officer and lash Panchayatnama Ex.P-5. In this case it is also not controversial that the death of the deceased was taken place on account of strangulation 3-4 days before and the same fact has been proved by the prosecution with the testimony of Dr.Vijay Ambore (PW-10) and post mortem report Ex.P-10. Thus the prosecution has proved the fact that death of Hakam Singh was homicidal.

8. Now the question is that whether appellant abducted and committed death of the deceased and also demanded ransom of Rs.50,000/- and after commission of death with intention to disappear the evidence of crime hide the dead body of the deceased.

9. As mentioned earlier, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, in which Halki Bai @ Geeta Bai (PW-2) and Devendra (PW-7) claimed that on 18/03/2005 deceased Hakam Singh was last seen alive in the company of appellant/accused near about 7.30 PM and thereafter deceased was not seen alive. On perusal of the statements of Halki Bai @ Geeta Bai (PW-2) and Devendra (PW-7) we are of the view that their statements are reliable and there is nothing on record to consider their statement with suspicion. They are independent and natural witnesses and have no personal grudge with the appellant/accused and their testimony has remained unimpeachable during their cross examination.

10. Apart from it, the demand of ransom by the appellant/accused through letter Article A is also found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Note book Article B has been seized from the possession of the appellant/accused on 27/03/2005 after arrest of him by seizure memo Ex.P-9 as stated by N.S. Bais, Investigating Officer (PW-15) and Bhagwan Singh (PW-9) and correctness of their statement has been accepted by the appellant/accused during his accused statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Similarly, Chappan Singh, ASI (PW-14) has stated that he with the permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ex.P-13) collected samples of handwriting of the appellant/accused from the jail, which are Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-113 and the appellant/accused has admitted correctness of this fact in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

11. Ganga Bai (PW-8) has stated that on the next day of missing of Hakam Singh near about 8.30 AM while she was grooming the court yard of her house she found three papers, in which it was narrated that Hakam Singh has been abducted and Rs.50,000/- be arranged to get back him alive and she handed over the letters to his father-in-law Bhan Singh and Vijay Ambore, S.I (PW-16) has stated that on 19/03/2005 Bhan Singh reported the incident to him and he recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-2 and also seized letters Article A, A-1 and A-2 and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-3. Bhan Singh (PW-5) has also corroborated the same fact and N.S. Bais, Investigating Officer (PW-15) has stated that the aforesaid letters and Article B and sample of handwriting were sent to the State Handwriting Examiner with the memo Ex.P-115 and got report of Handwriting Examiner which is Ex.P-116. As per the report, the questioned documents Q-1 to Q-3 are the letters Articles A, A-1, and A-2 and handwriting mark A-1 to A-111 (in which A-1 to A-100 are sample handwriting of the accused and A-101 to A-111 part of the handwriting content of note book Article B) have been written by the same person. The correctness of the report Ex.P-116 has not been challenged. During the accused examination, appellant/accused has not specifically denied the correctness of the report. The report has been given by State Examiner, Government of Bhopal of the questioned documents as a public servant, which is admissible in view of the provision of section 292 of the Cr.P.C and section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the appeal memo, it''s correctness or admissibility has not been challenged. In this regard the contention of the appellant/accused is that the letter (Article A) is fabricated and was got the same written by police forcibly but this contention has not substance as during the statement of the concerned witnesses, no suggestion has been given with regard to aforesaid defence. Appellant/accused during examination of him under section 313 of the Cr.P.C has not disclosed anything with regard to compelling or forcefully written letter Article A in his handwriting or any sample of his handwriting. Therefore in this regard prosecution evidence are reliable and it is found proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused has written letter Article A and in the Article A author claimed that deceased Hakum Singh was in his possession and if Rs.50,000/- was not arranged, the dead body of Hakum Singh will be sent to his house. As the letter Article A has been written by the appellant/accused, which proved admission of the appellant/accused that he abducted the deceased for getting ransom. This fact and circumstance corroborate the circumstance of last seen with the company of the deceased and these facts and circumstances in absence of any explaination, proved the fact beyond the reasonable doubt that appellant/accused abducted the deceased for getting ransom of Rs.50,000/- under threat to commit death of him and thereafter committed murder and also hide his corpus to disappear the evidence of the aforesaid crime.

12. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the appellant''s conviction for the offence punishable under sections 364(A), 302, 201 of the IPC is affirmed. So far sentence is concerned, it is also found to be in accordance with the law. Hence the order with regard to sentence is also affirmed and appellant''s appeal is dismissed.