Bagdi Ram vs State Of M. P. - 2003 Supreme(SC) 1221

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2003 Supreme(SC) 1221

2003(8) Supreme 579
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Bagdi Ram -Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1997
Decided on 3-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Gambhir, Senior Advocate, Anil K. Sharma and A.K. Sanghi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 304 Part I-Conviction of appellant by High Court after setting aside acquittal judgment of trial Court-Trial Court accepted defence plea that prosecution party was aggressor and injuries sustained by three members of defence party were not explained and thus accused acted in exercise of right of private defence-Appeal-Father of deceased had objected to appellant raising construction of a wall and in that quarrel deceased also arrived but they were unarmed-Rushing to place of occurrence was not an act of aggression-No justification for appellant to assault deceased with pick-axe on head causing serious injury-There was exchange of brick-bats between parties, injuries of three accused were thus explained-Conviction of appellant could not be interfered with-Sentence of eight years was on higher side and in facts and circumstances reduced to three years.
Held : The High Court on a careful appreciation of the evidence on record has found the findings recorded by the trial court unsustainable having regard to the evidence on record. The evidence on record clearly establishes that Mangilal, when he initially objected to the erection of the wall in front of his entrance, was not an aggressor. He merely objected to the construction of a wall blocking his passage. All members of the prosecution party including those who came subsequently were unarmed. The mere fact that they objected to the erection of the wall in front of their entrance did not pose any threat to the members of the defence party. There was really no reason for the members of the defence party to adopt an aggressive posture by assaulting Mangiram and his son Ramesh in the first instance, and thereafter assaulting Jagdish, deceased and others. It is noticeable that Mangiram and his son Ramesh were initially assaulted, and when they raised an alarm Jagdish, deceased, came running to the rescue of his father and brother. Admittedly he was unarmed. His rushing to the place of occurrence was not an act of aggression and it was only natural for him to come to the rescue of his father and brother who were being assaulted by the appellant and his family members. In such a situation there was really no justification for the appellant to assault Jagdish with a gainti (pick-axe) and that too on the head of Jagdish causing such a serious injury. He must have assaulted Jagdish, deceased, with all his might having regard to the fact that the skull bone was fractured and extensive damage had been caused to the skull, as noticed by the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-Bagdi Ram, who is the sole appellant in this appeal by special leave, has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1991 dated 30th September, 1996 finding him guilty of the offence under section 304 Part-I IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eights years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 20 months.

2. Appellant Bagdi Ram, alongwith five members of his family, was put up for trial before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 1990 in which they were variously charged of the offences under sections 147, 148 323/149, and 302/149 IPC. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 20th December, 1990 acquitted all of them holding that they had acted in exercise of their right of private defence and that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries suffered by three members of the defence party. State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal against the acquittal of all the six accused persons and by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court while setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour of appellant Bagdi Ram and his son Ramesh, acquitted the other accused persons. The High Court, as noticed earlier, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him as earlier noticed. Ramesh was found guilty of the offence under section 323 IPC and was sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

3. The incident giving rise to this appeal occurred on May 12, 1990 in village Digaonmali in which Mangilal and three members of his family suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. One of them, namely - Jagdish later succumbed to his injuries.

4. The case of the prosecution is that Bagdi Ram and Mangilal, PW.4 resided as neighbours in the same locality. On the date of incident the appellant herein was getting a wall constructed which was objected to by Mangilal, PW.4 on the ground that the construction of the wall would obstruct passage to his house. An altercation followed in which the appellant and his sons are alleged to have abused Mangilal to which Mangilal objected. The appellant and his three sons, namely - Ramesh, Dinesh and Dilip started assaulting Mangilal, PW.4 causing injuries on his back and head. Ramesh, PW.1, son of Mangilal intervened but he was also assaulted. The incident attracted Jagdish, (deceased) and Gopal, PW.3 another son of Mangilal to the place of occurrence and when they attempted to intervene they were also assaulted. The case of the prosecution is that appellant Bagdi Ram caused an injury on the head of the deceased by assaulting him with a gainti (pick-axe) as a result of which Jagdish, (deceased) fell down. Other members of the family of appellant Bagdi Ram also came to the spot and started pelting brick-bats on the members of the prosecution party. This attracted many residents of the locality to the place of occurrence, Bhanwarlal, PW.6, being one of them. Apart from deceased Jagdish and Mangilal, PW.4, Sampatibai, PW.2 wife of Mangi Lal and Gopal, PW.3 were also injured. Bhanwarlal, PW.6 brought them to the District Hospital at Mandsaur. Jagdish (deceased) was unconscious. It appears that Ramesh, PW.1, who was assaulted alongwith his father when the incident began, had rushed to the police station at Afzalpur and lodged a report Ext. P/1 at 10.20 a.m. and a case was registered by Head Constable Gopala Singh, PW.8 under Sections 341, 294 and 323 IPC.

5. When the injured persons were admitted in the hospital, Dr. A.V. Gwaliorkar, PW.10 sent information to the police station and pursuant thereto Head Constable Ramnagina Singh, PW.9 came to the hospital. He arranged for the medical examination of the injured witnesses as well as Jagdish who later died. Since the condi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document