SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 860

1997(1) Supreme 172
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Sukhpal etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 1989
With
Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1989
With
Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 1989
Decided on 8-1-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S. Kulshreshtha, S.K. Gambhir, (Rakesh U. Upadhyay) Adv. for D.V. Vohra, (Sakesh Kumar) Adv. for Uma Nath Singh, Advocates.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304 Part II/149-Appellant S was a Major and other four appellants were constables of Special Armed Force-Deceased was a member of Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat and a social worker-Prosecution case that appellants came to her house on false pretext of searching for unauthorised firearms and forcibly took her to police station beating her all the way-Eye witnesses supporting this version-Defence case of recovery of an unlicensed pistol not believable-Motive for crime-Deceased died six days after alleged assault-Medical evidence that victim sustained fatal injury in incident in question-Conviction of appellant u/s 304 Part II- Conviction of other four appellants altered from Sections 304 Part II/34 to 304 Part II/149-Sentence of RI for 5 years reduced to three years-Appellant S to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000-Other appellants to pay Rs. 10,000/- each as fine-Amount to be paid to heirs of deceased.

       Held : As regards the appellant Sukhpal, we are of the view that the High Court was fully justified in setting aside his acquittal. The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that out of spite, he along with his men went to the premises of Phoola Devi on the false pretext of searching the same, brought her out and dragged her to the police station while assaulting her on the way which ultimately resulted in her death. All the appellants including Sukhpal are therefore guilty of the offence of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder in prosecution of their common object. (Para 10)

       Further held that the appellants should adequately compensate the members of the deceased s family for the atrocities they committed taking advantage of the haplessness of Phoola Devi. (Para 11)

       

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-The five appellants in these three appeals were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 304 (Para II) read with Sections 149, and 330 IPC. The allegations against them were that on September 17, 1982 they committed rioting and in course thereof caused bodily injuries to Phoola Devi of village Phera with a view to extorting confession from her which ultimately resulted in her death on September 23, 1982. The trial Court acquitted one of them namely, Sukhpal (the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 1989) and convicted the other four under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Assailing the judgment of the trial Court the four convicts preferred an appeal and the State of Madhya Pradesh, in its turn, filed another appeal against the acquittal of Sukhpal and for enhancement of sentences of the other four appellants. In disposing of the two appeals by a common judgment, the High Court set aside the acquittal of Sukhpal and convicted him under Section 304 (Para II) read with Section 149 IPC and dismissed the other appeal. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these three appeals which have been heard together.

2. Sukhpal was Major and the other four appellants were constables of the Special Armed Force (S.A.F.), Gwalior and at the material time they were camping at Chhatarpur to look after the law and order situation there. At the time of her death Phoola Devi was a member of the Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat and was a social worker of the same area. According to the prosecution the appellants used to indulge in anti-social activities and were responsible for gambling and illicit distillation. As their such activities had created a terror among the villagers Phoola Devi took up the cudgels against them. On August 5, 1982 the Company Commandant of S.A.F. was to visit the village and Phoola Devi had planned to submit a representation to him complaining about the illegal activities of the appellants. This visit was, however, cancelled. It is alleged that the appellants had learnt about such move of Phoola Devi.

3. The further prosecution case is that on September 17, 1982 at or about 8 A.M. the appellants entered into the house of Phoola Devi on the pretext that they had information that she was having in her possession contraband ganja and unlicensed pistol. Phoola Devi was, however, not in the house at that time and her nephew told them that there was no such material. In the meantime Phoola Devi came back home and denied the accusation levelled against her. Appellant Sukhpal then abused her and appellant Ramrup Singh caught hold of her hair and started beating her. She was dragged outside the house and then taken towards the police station. While being taken to the police station, the appellants continued to beat her with lathis and a Beshram stick. At the police station they let her go on an assurance that she would pay Rs. 150/- and would not lodge any complaint. Phoola Devi, however, went to Chhatarpur and lodged a complaint on September 18, 1982. She was then sent for medical examination by Dr. S.K. Dixit (P.W.4), who examined her gave his report (Ex. P-2). Thereafter Phoola Devi left the village out of fear and went to the nearby town of Banda (Uttar Pradesh) where she died on September 23, 1982. Her death was reported at Kotwali, Bandavide. Dr. Vishal Chand (P.W.5) performed the autopsy and gave his report with his opinion that Phoola Devi died of rupture of liver and excessive bleeding. On receipt of the report of the post-mortem examination and after completion of investigation police submitted chargesheet against the appellants.

4. The appellants completely denied the charges levelled against them. Their contention was that on September 17, 1982 an unlicensed pistol was recovered from the possession of Phoola Devi and hence they brought her to the police station. She howev












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top