1. Police personnel assaulted a woman on a false pretext, causing injuries leading to death; proceedings regarding convictions under Sections 304 (Part II) and 149 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
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.
Important Points
A leader is liable under Section 149 IPC for crimes committed by subordinates in prosecution of a common object, even without personal participation in the assault. Furthermore, injuries causing internal organ rupture leading to death are classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part II) IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide
Act Referred
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)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claimed the incident was a lawful search and recovery and argued that the fatal injuries were sustained after the alleged assault. (Para 4 , 8 )
3. The court rejected the defense for lack of official records and found the fatal liver rupture resulted from injuries sustained during the assault. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 )
4. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is established when an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is inflicted in prosecution of a common object. (Para 10 )
5. Convictions under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 149 IPC upheld; substantive sentences reduced to three years with fines imposed as compensation. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can a leader be held liable for assaults committed by subordinates if they did not personally participate in the beating?
Yes. If the leader heads a group acting in concert and fails to stop the assault, it is evident they approved of the action, making them a party to the assault under the principle of common object. (Para 5 , 10 )
7. How is the cause of death established when there is a time gap between the assault and death?
By linking the fatal internal injury to a contusion observed by both the initial examining doctor and the autopsy surgeon, proving the injury was sustained during the incident. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. When is an assault classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part II) IPC instead of simple hurt?
When the injury inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 10 )
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
