Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

MOHANSINGH V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, decided on Monday, April 3, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore, Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1999. ] 03/04/2017
Judge(s) : ALOK VERMA
Advocate(s) : Ashish Gupta, Learned Counsel. C.S. Ujjainia, Learned Counsel.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Kailash Nath Versus X-th Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Others,   08/01/2013.  

  Snyman Lourens Abraham South African National Versus Y.M. Patil & Another,   20/12/2012.  

  State of M.P. Versus Shobhagsingh & Others,   29/03/2012.  

  Sitabai W/o Shivnarayan Thakur & Others Versus Mansingh S/o Ramsingh Thakur,   18/10/2011.  

  Bhoj Raj Dubey Versus Additional Collector, Jabalpur & Others,   14/03/2011.  

  Rani K. Lulla Versus The Employees State Insurance Corporation & Another,   28/06/2010.  

  Nathia Bai Versus Gangaram,   09/10/2009.  

  Nareshbhai Vishnubhai Chauhan Versus State of Gujarat,   25/09/2008.  

  Goel Coal Co. Versus Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Tax,   07/03/2008.  

  Medical Officer Versus Naranbhai Dharmabhai Prajapati,   25/01/2008.  

  Motiram Ramchandra Versus State of Madhya Pradesh.,   17/05/2007.  

  Nirmaljeet Kaur Versus State of M.P.,   13/02/2007.  

  Kumersingh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   11/12/2006.  

  Lubi Electricals Ltd Versus A.T. Painter,   19/09/2006.  

  Mansingh Versus State of M.P.,   07/09/2006.  

  Textiles Labour Association Versus Padmaben Manilal Parmar,   03/08/2006.  

  Surendra Singh @ Pappu Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   17/05/2006.  

  Mangusingh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   11/05/2006.  

  Marble City Motors Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax,   20/04/2006.  

  Mohansingh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   22/08/2005.  

  Chhota Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   03/05/2005.  

  Ranjit Kr.Dey Versus Krishna Gopal Agarwala,   11/06/2004.  

  Jagdish Versus State Of M P,   15/03/2004.  

  Nattha s/o Janved Versus State of M.P.,   06/01/2003.  

  Nattha, Janved Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   06/01/2003.  

  Rajalal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   06/08/2002.  

  Mohansingh Tanwani & others Versus State of Maharashtra & others ,   22/03/2001.  

  N.T.C. Ltd. Versus Mohansingh Sisodiya,   07/02/2000.  

  State of M.P. Versus Raghuvir Singh Prahlad Singh,   28/06/1997.  

  Jagroop Prasad Mishra Versus State of M.P.,   29/04/1997.  

  Savitri Devi Versus Manorama Bai,   28/04/1997.  

  Bhupinder Singh Versus Janak Rani,   11/12/1996.  

  Anokhilal Mehta versus Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jhabua,   04/11/1996.  

  Narendra Surana Versus State of M.P.,   02/11/1996.  

  Kailashpati Kedia Versus State of Maharashtra,   27/03/1996.  

  Indrakumar Versus State Of M.P.,   16/01/1996.  

  Mohansingh Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax,   15/09/1995.  

  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jhamku Bai & Others,   22/01/1992.  

  Uma Gupta Versus Sushila,   30/01/1989.  

  State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Kailash Basudeo Prasad Tiwari,   08/09/1987.  

  Nainaram Versus State of M.P.,   10/02/1986.  

  Vijay Transport Company v/s Income Tax Officer,   26/12/1984.  

  Amritlal Versus State of M.P,   18/07/1984.  

  Bhanwarlal Bapulal Versus Fatesingh Pannalal,   07/03/1984.  

  Rameshwar Prasad Versus State of M. P,   16/02/1984.  

  Rajaram Gupta Versus Dharamchand,   29/10/1982.  

  Shyamlal Rajak Versus State of M.P.,   16/10/1982.  

  Devilal Versus Kinkar Narmadaprasad,   01/12/1981.  

  Azim Shah Versus State of Madhya Pradesh,   26/08/1981.  

  Karansingh Versus State of M.P.,   18/08/1981.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (2) MPWN 152"  ==   ""  

    1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jhabua in S.T. No.203/1998 dated 23.01.1999 whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the present appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to 3 years R.I.2. It is admitted in this case that the injured Jokhalibai is the wife of the present appellant and it is also admitted that Ramesh PW-2 and Poonam PW-3 are children of the present appellant and injured Jokhalibai.3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 19.03.1998 at about 9 P.M. the injured Jokhalibai was cooking food. The present appellant was also at home. He was working as Home Guard. He started using abusive language against the injured Jokhalibai and said that he will not leave her alive and thereafter it is alleged that he inflicted three injuries by a sphere. The first injury was in the abdomen due to which the small intestine came out. The second injury was on her chest which was deep cavity and third injury was on left wrist which was V-shaped. The learned Sessions Judge found the present appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to R.I. as aforesaid.4. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence as aforesaid this appeal is filed on the ground that all the witnesses except the injured turned hostile and therefore the conviction should be set aside. None of the injuries found on the body of the injured was dangerous to life. According to the defence taken by the present appellant (i) he was not present at home and this fact was not taken into consideration by the trial Court (ii) according to the FIR the incident took place on 19.03.1998 however the doctor examined the injured on 18.03.1998 and this discrepancy was not taken into consideration by trial Court (iii) there was no eye witness of the incident (iv) the injured Jokhalibai said that after the incident she went unconscious however according to the doctor when she was brought to the hospital she was conscious and the said discrepancy was also not taken into consideration (v) the blood found on the sphere was not matching with the blood group of the injured and therefore this fact was also to be taken into consideration (vi) both the sons of the injured turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and this fact was also not taken into consideration. Based on the above mentioned grounds the present appellant prays that judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside.5. Learned counsel for the State supports the judgment and submits that this appeal should be dismissed.6. The question is whether the trial Court erred in holding the present appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC. Ramesh PW-2 is son of the present appellant and the injured Jokhalibai. According to him his father did not cause any injury to his mother neither he used any abusive language against her. Similarly Poonam PW-3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Remu (PW-4) is stated to be the person who reached on the spot on hearing the cry of Jokhalibai. He also did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Similarly the seizure witnesses also turned hostile.7. In such a situation the only evidence available is Jokhalibai who is the injured and examined as PW-10. In her statement she stated that on the date of incident at about 8 P.M. she was cooking food when her husband the present appellant called her dayan and thereafter he inflicted three injuries on abdomen and chest and left wrist by sphere. Hearing her cry her sons Ramesh PW-2 Poonam PW-3 and also Remu PW-4 came there. Seeing them the appellant fled away. The injured was taken by her sons to the Police Station where she lodged the report herself which is marked as Ex.P-10. Her dying declaration was also recorded immediately i.e. Ex.P-7. The statement was recorded by the doctor. In her cross examination there is nothing to suggest that her statement is not reliable. This apart she suffered serious injuries. Both injuries no.1 and 2 were caused on vital part of the body abdomen and chest. Both the injuries were penetrating upto the abdominal and thoracic cavity. They cannot be self inflicted. The third injury is on her left wrist and therefore her statement is supported by the medical evidence. This apart she herself recorded the FIR and there is no discrepancy between her statement and facts narrated in the FIR. In her dying declaration which can be used as her previous statement she stated that the injuries were inflicted by the present appellant by sphere.8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in her statement she admitted that after the incident she was unconscious but fact remains that she also stated that when she was taken to the hospital and was given treatment by the doctor she regained consciousness. The doctor recorded her statement Ex.P-7 at 4.40 P.M. and he certified that at the time of commencing of statement and also at the time of finishing the statement she remained conscious throughout.9. Taking all these piece of evidence together it is apparent that the sole testimony of the injured Jokhalibai PW-10 is fully reliable and conviction of the present appellant can be based on her statement alone. In this view of the matter I find that inferences drawn by the learned trial Court are based on cogent reasons and evidence available on record. No interference is called for.Accordingly this appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed. The order of the trial Court in respect of disposal of the property is also confirmed. Bail and bond are cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take him under custody and send him to jail for suffering remaining portion of his sentence.Appeal stands dismissed.