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

1975 Supreme(SC) 329

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Mitter Sen and others, Appellants
 
Versus
 
The State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1971
 
Decided on 4-9-1975.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 149, 323 , 302 , 148 and 304 - Offence of murder - Appeal against conviction - Incident out of which this appeal arises, took place in a village called Charra within the jurisdiction of Police Station - Genesis of the incident was petty dispute which arose between the first appellant, on the one hand and Bhajan Lal, Raghubar Dayal and his brother Shyam Lal on the other. The houses of Bhajan Lal and the first appellant are situate adjoining to each other and each of these houses had a chabutra in front demolished by the Town Area Committee of Charra for facilitating construction of pacca drain and so also, the chabutras of various other residents of the village but the Chabutras of the first appellant was spared carried a feeling that the first appellant was responsible for the demolition of his started bearing ill will against the first appellant - Alleged to have said on occasion that he would properly deal with Shyam Lal as he was a great supporter prosecution case was in the evening on that day were lying in their cots on the Chabutra in front of their house, the and Prem Shankar came there and challenged Rabhubar latter replied stating that they did not wish to enter into any quarrel with the appellants and their companions and asked them to go away were completely unarmed and only two persons who had weapons with them carried a knife and Prem Shankar, who had a danda - appellants and their companions, according to prosecution, dragged Raghubar Dayal and started assaulting him with kicks and fists attacked him with his danda. Shyam Lal immediately intervened – Held, Appellants knew that he was carrying a knife - Alleged by the prosecution to be carrying participation was not accepted by the High Court as established beyond reasonable doubt – Court proceed on the basis that he was not present. If that be so, it is indeed difficult to see how any common intention could be attributed to the appellants to cause simple hurt to. only part attributed by the prosecution witnesses to the appellants was that they assaulted Raghubar Dayal with kicks and fists borne out by medical evidence on record. We do not find from the medical evidence any 1160 injuries received from kicks and fist blows. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful whether the appellants gave any kicks and fist blows to Raghubar Dayal. The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 cannot in the circumstances be sustained - Appeal allowed

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The prosecution evidence did not show that the appellants gave any kicks or fist blows to Raghubar Dayal, as there were no corresponding injuries supported by medical evidence (!) . - The appellants came to the scene unarmed, and it was not established beyond reasonable doubt that they had common intention to cause simple hurt (!) . - The first information report did not mention Sajjan Kumar and Laxmi Chand, whose presence with lathis was relied upon by the prosecution, undermining the prosecution version (!) . - The High Court had already acquitted Chiranji Lal, Hazari Lal, and Prem Shanker due to doubt in their participation (!) . - The conviction of the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 could not be sustained based on the available evidence (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted of the relevant offences (!) . - The bail bonds of the appellants will stand cancelled as a result of the acquittal (!) .

What is the basis for acquitting the appellants of the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?

What is the basis for setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants?

What are the key evidentiary deficiencies in the prosecution case against the appellants?


JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI, J.:—The incident, out of which this appeal arises, took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 2nd August, 1967 in a village called Charra within the jurisdiction of 1157 Barla Police Station. The genesis of the incident was petty dispute which arose between the first appellant, on the one hand and Bhajan Lal, Raghubar Dayal and his brother Shyam Lal on the other. The houses of Bhajan Lal and the first appellant are situate adjoining to each other and each of these houses had a chabutra in front of it. The Chabutra of Bhajan Lal was demolished by the Town Area Committee of Charra for facilitating construction of pacca drain and so also, the chabutras of various other residents of the village but the Chabutras of the first appellant was spared. Bhajan Lal carried a feeling that the first appellant was responsible for the demolition of his Chabutra and he, therefore, started bearing ill will against the first appellant. He was supported by Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal who took sides with him in this dispute with the 1st appellant. On 2nd August, 1967 at about 7 p.m. there was exchange of hot words between Shyam Lal and the 1st appellant in connection with this dispute and, according to the prosecution, the 1st appellant is alleged to have said on this occasion that he would properly deal with Shyam Lal as he was a great supporter of Bhajan Lal. The prosecution case was that late in the evening on that day at about 9.30 p.m., while Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal were lying in their cots on the Chabutra in front of their house, the appellants and Chandra Prakash, Chiranji Lal, Hazari Lal and Prem Shankar came there and challenged Rabhubar Dayal and Shyam Lal. The latter replied stating that they did not wish to enter into any quarrel with the appellants and their companions and asked them to go away. At that time, the appellants, Chiranji Lal and Hazari Lal were completely unarmed and the only two persons who had weapons with them were Chandra Prakash, who carried a knife and Prem Shankar, who had a danda. The appellants and their companions, according to the prosecution, dragged Raghubar Dayal and started assaulting him with kicks and fists and then Prem Shanker attacked him with his danda. Shyam Lal immediately intervened, but whilst he was trying to separate Raghubar Dayal, Chandra Prakash whipped out a knife from his pocket and gave three or four knife blows to Shyam Lal. On hearing the noise, Raghubar Dayal s brother-in-law Sajjan Kumar and his nephew Laxmi Chand came out of the house with lathis and started assaulting the appellants and their companions. By this time some other neighbours also arrived on the scene and they were Prem Chand, Raj Bahadur, Ram Kisan, Budh Sen and Bhagwan Das. The appellants and their companions thereupon ran away from the scene of the offence. Raghubar Dayal and Shyam Lal being injured were taken to the hospital at Charra and there, Raghubar Dayal got a report written by one Bhagwan Swarup and he took that report to the Police Station at Barla where a first information report was lodged and a case was registered. The injuries received by Shyam Lal were rather serious and he had, therefore, to be removed to the District Hospital at Aligarh but he expired at 6-40 p.m. on 3rd August, 1967. Sub-Inspector Ram Prakash Gupta carried out the investigation and after it was completed, he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants and Chandra Prakash, Chiranji Lal, Hazari Lal and Prem Shanker.

2. The defence of appellants Nos. 1 and 2 and Chandra Prakash was that while the first appellant was in Jawahar Chowk at about 9.30 p.m. on 2nd August, 1967, the 2nd appellant and Chandra Prakash came there for going to their house and at that time Shyam Lal Raghubar Dayal, Laxmi Chand and Sajjan Kumar suddenly appeared and started assaulting them with dandas as a result of which the 3rd appellant also happened to come there and he too was beaten. The 3rd appellant also put forward the same defence and adde








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