Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDIRA BANERJEE, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
DEVILAL AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 989 OF 2007
Decided On : 25-02-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 20 – Murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Even if it is held that one accused was guilty of offence with which he was charged, matter must be remitted to jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for determining appropriate quantum of fine that should be levied on him – As for other appellants, substantive testimony of witnesses clearly discloses that appellants had opened assault on deceased which led to his death – FIR was rightly relied upon by courts below as dying declaration on part of deceased – Recoveries of weapons also lend sufficient corroboration to case of prosecution – View taken by courts below affirmed and appellants held guilty of offence with which they were charged – Their appeal deserves dismissal – Conviction and sentence recorded by courts below, insofar as accused are concerned, are, affirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon juvenile set aside and matter remitted to jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board for determining appropriate quantum of fine that should be levied on appellant (Juvenile). (Paras 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellants along with wife of accused Devilal, were tried in Special Offence Case No. 88 of 1998 in court of Special Judge (SC/ST), Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. High Court affirmed conviction and sentence recorded against accused Devilal, Gokul and Amrat Ram and dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1999 by its judgment and order dated 14.09.2006 which decision is presently under challenge.
Findings of Court:
Nothing is available on record to show that Ganeshram had shown these symptoms either soon after the incident or when his statement was recorded by PW8 Shankar Rao. No questions were put to PW1-Sajan Bai, PW2 Saman Bai and PW8-Shankar Rao in that behalf. We, therefore, reject the submission advanced on this score and find that the FIR was rightly relied upon by the courts below as dying declaration on part of Ganeshram.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. This appeal, at the instance of Devilal son of Chetaram Gujar and his two sons Gokul and Amrat Ram, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the High Court 1 [High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Indore] in Criminal Appeal No.700 of 1999.
2. The appellants along with one Gattubai, wife of accused Devilal, were tried in Special Offence Case No. 88 of 1998 in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST), Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’, for short).
3. The instant crime arose out of F.I.R. No.212 of 1998 registered at 11.10 p.m. on 19.07.1998 with Police Station Manasa, District Neemach, Madhya Pradesh. The reporting made by one Ganeshram was to the following effect:-
“I am resident of village Khera Kushalpura. On 14.7.98, there had been quarrel between Devilal son of Jetram Gurjar and me in village Khera Kusalpura. Today, in the evening I was coming from Binabas after doing my work and going by walk to my house. At about 8 p.m., while going towards my house on public road when I had reached in front of the house of Devilal Gurjar then after seeking me Devilal armed with Kulhari, his son Gokul armed with Talwar and Amritlal armed with lathi had come there. Devilal had abused me and called me as Chamar and stated that Chamars have advanced too much. He told me that he shall finish me. He had attacked me from sharp side of Kulhari with intention to kill me. The first blow hit me on the bone (calf) of right leg. Gokul had given secondsword blow on my bone (calf) of left leg. My both legs were cut and I fell down there itself. Then Amritram had given lathi blow on my right fist and left hand and my right fist was fractured. These persons had again called me Chamar and told me that if I shall fight with them again. They had kicked me on my face below both eyes and there is swelling. Then I shouted for help. My mother Gattu Bai, wife Sajan Bai and sisterin-law Saman Bai had run from home and reached there, they protected me. When Saman Bai was protecting me then Devilal had given blow on her left elbow. Later, my mother, wife and sister-in-law lifted me and taken me to home. Kanhaiyalal had brought tractor from Barbua. …Satyanarain, my sister-in-law Saman Bai have put me in the tractor and brought me to police station. I am lodging report, I have heard the report, it is correct. Action may be taken. My hand is fractured and I cannot sign. I have put my thumb impression.”
4. The aforesaid FIR was recorded by PW8-Shankar Rao, who, then took Ganeshram along with Tehsildar to Community Health Centre, Manasa, where PW9-Dr. Kailash Chandra Kothari examined injured Ganeshram. It was found that the general condition of the injured was not good; that he was unable to speak; and that his blood pressure could not be recorded. The injuries found on the person of Ganeshram were recorded in report Exhibit P/23 and Ganeshram was referred to Surgical Specialist, District Hospital, Mandasaur vide Reference Form Exhibit P/25 at about 12.45 a.m. on 20.07.1998.
However, while PW9-Dr. Kothari was completing the formalities, Ganeshram expired at 1.00 a.m.. PW9-Dr. Kothari, therefore, recorded the information of death in Exhibit P/26 under his signature.
5. At about 9.45 a.m. on 20.07.1998, application Exhibit P/17 was received by PW9-Dr. Kothari, pursuant to which post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of Ganeshram. The observations with respect to external and internal injuries suffered by the deceased were as under:-
“16. The following external injuries were present on his person –
1. Incised wound with dimension of five X four and a half X three and a half cm. which is present on left leg in which broken pieces of Tibia and Fibula bone were found. Much of blood was found to have coagulated near about the wo
FIR can be relied upon by court as dying declaration on part of deceased.
The court affirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence for a juvenile offender, imposing a fine instead, in accordance with juvenile justice provisions.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt, while recognizing the appe....
Juveniles charged with offences must be treated according to juvenile law; failure to do so results in invalidation of convictions and sentences.
An individual assessed to be a juvenile at the time of offence must not be tried as an adult, with their age determination being essential for proper legal proceedings.
(1) Juvenile accused – Medical opinion based on Bone Ossification Test, is not entirely accurate – In a case of juvenility where two views are possible, liberal approach should be undertaken.(2) Bene....
The court confirmed that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, impacting sentencing under the Juvenile Justice Act.
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
