Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh, JJ.
Tika Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeals No. 701 of 2001 with Nos. 702-04 of 2001
Decided On : 14-01-2003
Criminal Appeal - Offences under Section 302, 395, 396, 397 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 149
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and six other accused were charged for various offences including murder and robbery. The trial resulted in the acquittal of one accused and the conviction of the appellant and two others for murder. The incident involved the death of 7 members of a family and injuries to others due to a dispute over a marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 based on the evidence of a single eyewitness and his role in disabling a victim during the incident.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's connection to the motive, reliability of a single witness, and the application of Section 149 to the appellant's role in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that evidence of a single witness can be relied upon if it is reliable and acceptable. It also concluded that the appellant's role in disabling a victim during the incident was sufficient to attract punishment under Section 302 read with Section 149.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.
ORDER :
Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 2001
N. Santosh Hegde, J. - The appellant herein along with six other accused persons was charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Sections 395, 396 and 397 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh in ST No. 28 of 1993.
2. Out of the six accused persons, two of them, namely, Parmalsingh and Jitendra were absconding, hence, their case was separated and the trial proceeded against the four accused persons only. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not established the case against A-4, hence, acquitted him of the charges levelled against him. So far as A-1, Sarnamsingh and A-2, Shivrajsingh are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charges levelled against them and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence convicted them for the offence under Section 302 and sentenced them to death and referred the matter to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence. So far as the appellant before us is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge had found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 but taking into consideration his role in the crime sentenced him only to life imprisonment. The said convicted accused filed an appeal before the High Court of M.P. which came to be dismissed. The petition for confirmation of the death sentence referred by the learned Sessions Judge to the High Court also came to be dismissed and the High Court reduced the sentence of death to one of life imprisonment and the appeal filed against the present appellant herein for enhancement of sentence also came to be dismissed confirming the life imprisonment awarded to this accused.
3. A-1 and A-2 who have been convicted by the courts below whose sentences have now been reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court have not filed any appeal while A-3 alone has challenged his conviction in the above appeal.
4. The prosecution case stated briefly for the purpose of disposal of this appeal that one Madansingh who was a lawyer by profession was residing with his family in Village Sumarakhedi. His youngest son, Mahendrasingh was engaged to be married to Sangita, daughter of A-1 Sarnamsingh. The said engagement was broken by the family of Sangita because the family of Mahendrasingh belonged to a lower class. However, Mahendrasingh and Sangita eloped and got married in a temple. After their marriage, on the intervention of the elders and well-wishers of both the families, the family of Sangita accepted the marriage and even held a function to celebrate the said marriage. After the said celebration, Sangita went with Mahendrasingh to live in her father-in-law's house at Sumarakhedi. The prosecution states that as was the practice in the community to which the families belonged to, A-1 with other elder members of the family went to the house of Madansingh to ask him to send Sangita to their house. It is stated that Sangita apprehended some danger to her life, hence, did not agree to go to the house of her father, consequently Madansingh and other members of the family refused to send Sangita with A-1 and his family members to their house. Being enraged and insulted by this refusal, it is stated that the accused persons shot dead 7 members of the family of Madansingh and injured some others including Sangita. The incident in question was reported to Gulab Singh, the brother of Madansingh who resides in the neighbouring house, by his son. On hearing the news, the said Gulab Singh came to the house of Madansingh and saw some of the accused persons coming down from the first floor of the house armed with firearms. The said Gulab Singh then lodged a police complaint based on which the investigation took place and the accused persons were charge-sheeted and convicted, as stated above.
5. In this appeal on behalf of the appellant, Tika Ram, it is c
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
