IMPORTANT POINTS
1. First Information Report is only a report submitted informing the police about the commission of the crime. It is not required that the said First Information Report should contain a detailed and vivid description of the entire incident.
2. There is no requirement in the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove something. The evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted.
3. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law would be just the same as if each of them has done the offence individually by himself.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 302 r/34-Prosecution of accused persons three in number for causing death of deceased by firing shot at him from licenced single barrel gun-Trial Court while convicting A1 acquitted other two accused persons-Appeals thereagainst- High Court not only upheld the order of conviction passed against A1 but also passed a similar order of conviction and sentence as against other accused persons who were acquitted by the trial court-Appeal- It cannot be expected from the informant, to give each and every minute detail of the incident in the First Information Report- PW 1 who had filed the information with the police not being an eye- witness, it could not be said that non mentioning about role played by appellants in the FIR would be in any manner fatal to the case of prosecution-Again there being a plausible and possible explanation given for recording the statements of eye-witnesses after 8 days, same could not, in any manner, demolish or vitiate the prosecution case- Motive for the offence was established as there was an enmity between complainant party and accused persons-Prosecution examined at least three eye-witnesses to the occurrence of incident who stated as to how incident had happened-They also stated the different and various role played by the accused persons- Since eye witnesses were available and examined, there was no necessity of examining any other witness- No infirmity in the judgment and order passed by High Court-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14 to 21)
Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 34-Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law would be just the same as if each of them has done the offence individually by himself- This doctrine of constructive criminal liability is well-established in law- The very fact that appellants were holding the hand of deceased and also at the same time exhorting A1 to bring the gun and to fire upon the deceased so as to kill him spoke volume and also proved and established that they had done the act intentionally so as to see that deceased was fired upon and shot dead- This fact clearly proved and establishes that appellants also had common intention of killing deceased- It is established from the records that they had intentionally become a party to commit the murder of deceased- No infirmity found in the judgment and order passed by High Court setting aside order of acquittal so far as appellants were concerned-Order of conviction and sentence passed against appellants upheld – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 19 to 21)

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has not only confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of Shri Ramdutt, who was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and for 3 years rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act but also set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in the cases of Mahesh and Kanhaiyalal.

2. The High Court by passing the impugned judgment and order has convicted both the aforesaid accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The sum and substance of the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is that all the three accused persons have now been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 1.11.1993, the complainant Badri Lal(PW 1) along with Rambabu (PW 3), son of deceased Kirori, went to their chilly field to water the same. The said field was adjacent to the field of Mahesh and Ramdutt who, at that point of time, were watering their field. When asked by the complainant and Rambabu about watering their field, Mahesh and Ramdutt told them that they can water their field only after watering of their field is completed by them.

4. It is alleged that on hearing this, PW 1 and PW 3 came back to their village to go back again in the afternoon, when while trying to release water to their field, they were assaulted by Ramdutt and Mahesh. It is alleged that after the said incident, Ramdutt and Mahesh came back running to the village and PW 1 and PW 3 also came behind them. When PW 1 and PW 3 reached the door, they heard the sound of gunshot fire. On hearing the sound, they ran towards the said direction, when on way, they saw Ramdutt and Mahesh running with guns in their hands. It is alleged that when Ramdutt and Mahesh saw PW 3, Mahesh fired a gunshot at Rambabu (PW 3) who saved himself by lying down. Thereafter, PW 1 and PW 3 reached in front of the door of Ramnarayan and Devi Prasad when PW 1 saw the body of his younger brother Kirori, lying dead on the ground, being hit by a gunshot which had hit him on chest and stomach. The body was surrounded by Deviprasad, Ramnath, Kirori’s wife Malti, Rambabu’s wife Sunita and other members, daughters-in-law and daughters.

5. At that stage, Malti told PW 1 that on hearing the news of altercation at the field, Kirori was going towards the field when Ramdutt, Mahesh and Kanhaiya who were standing at their door and that Ramdutt, with the licenced single barrel gun of his father Kanhaiya, fired a shot at Kirori which had hit him near the abdomen as a result of which Kirori fell down and died.

6. The First Information Report was filed by PW 1 at about 3.15 p.m. at the Police Station which is 14 kms away from the village. On receipt of the First Information Report, a criminal case was registered and the police started investigation, during the course of which all the three accused persons were arrested. Charge-sheet was filed as against all the three accused persons. Pursuant to filing of chargesheet, trial was held during the course of which several witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence also examined one witness in support of their defence. The statements of all the three accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr P.C. and thereafter, the learned Trial Court, by the judgment and order passed on 9.8.1999, convicted Ramdutt under Section 302 IPC and passed an order sentencing him to life imprisonment and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Arms Act, respectively. So far

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 904

2011 (6) Supreme 705SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.Mahesh & Anr. — Appellant(s)versusState of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent(s)Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2008Decided on : 13-9-2011

2011 (6) Supreme 705
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Mahesh & Anr. — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2008
Decided on : 13-9-2011