Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Shyamlal & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024
Decided on : 20-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304 Part II, 452, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Medical evidence creates serious doubt as to whether injuries allegedly inflicted by respondents caused death of deceased – There is serious doubt whether even Section 304 of IPC could have been applied, as medical opinion does not support theory of homicidal death of deceased – Incident is almost thirty-six years old – Accused were above seventy years of age and one of them was of age of about eighty years – Substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by High Court by way of fine – It will not be appropriate to interfere with impugned judgment of High Court whereby Respondents were let off by High Court with sentence already undergone. (Paras 13 and 14)
(B) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 415 – Appeal against conviction – In all major High Courts in our country, there is huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction and acquittal – Considering pendency of very old criminal appeals, priority is usually given to hearing of appeals where accused are in prison – Appeals against conviction where accused are on bail take a backseat – However, right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail – Old age of accused and long lapse of time from commission of offence can always be a ground available to give some priority to appeals against conviction of accused on bail – If appeals against conviction where accused are on bail and especially where life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if appeal is dismissed, question arises of sending accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade – It is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where accused are on bail should be given priority. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. High Court proceeded to set aside the conviction of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. High Court converted the conviction under Section 302 into the second part of Section 304 of the IPC. Conviction for the other offences was confirmed. High Court noted that the incident was of the year 1989. First respondent was nearly eighty years old, and four other respondents were also above the age of seventy. Respondents were let off by the High Court with the sentence already undergone.
Findings of Court:
When judgment of High Court was delivered, at least five accused were above seventy years of age, and one of them was of the age of about eighty years. Substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed by High Court by way of fine. It will not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The High Court’s approach to converting Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and letting respondents off with sentence already undergone is not interfered with (dismissal of appeal) (!) (!) - Medical evidence casts serious doubt on death being homicidal; may not support Section 302/149 or even Section 304, still the High Court’s acquittal/let-off upheld (!) (!) - Incident occurred in 1989; respondents were aged 70–80; High Court imposed fines and let them off with undergone sentence (!) (!) (!) - This Court emphasizes balancing pendency and ensuring justice, suggesting priority for certain appeals where accused are on bail, especially with long delays and old age (!) (!) - The appeal is dismissed; no interference with High Court’s judgment (!) - Post-mortem and medical testimony indicate death caused by asphyxia with inconclusive link to injuries; medical opinion doubts causation (!) (!) - The State argued for harsher punishment and reclassification; the Court rejected given evidence and age considerations (!) (!) - The judgment underscores deterrence but cautions against excessive leniency for decades-old cases; emphasizes the potential social interest in compensation rather than imprisonment in some cases (!) (!) - Old age and long lapse of time can justify prioritizing certain bail-accused appeals to avoid undue imprisonment after long delays (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court held the respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. For other offences, separate punishments were imposed, which were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Respondents preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By the impugned judgment dated 24th August 2017, the High Court proceeded to set aside the conviction of the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court converted the conviction under Section 302 into the second part of Section 304 of the IPC. The conviction for the other offences was confirmed. The High Court noted that the incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent, Shyamlal, was nearly eighty years old, and four other respondents were also above the age of seventy. The respondents were let off by the High Court with the sentence already undergone. A fine of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees sixteen thousand) each was imposed on the respondents out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) was ordered to be paid to the family of the deceased and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each to PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and PW-2 (Ramadhar).
3. The incident is of 1st November 1989 which happened at about 4 pm. It is alleged that the respondents, with a common intention and object, got together and assaulted PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar), PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev), and the deceased- Laxman. It is alleged that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo belonging to the respondents. According to the prosecution's case, the respondents first attacked PW-1, PW-3, and PW-11 while they were working in the field. Thereafter, PW-1 ran away. The respondents chased him and dragged PW-2, PW-12, and the deceased-Laxman out of their houses and assaulted them.
4. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 suffered simple injuries. In the case of PW-2 (Ramadhar), the assault by the respondents resulted in the fracture of the ulna bone of the right hand. As regards the PW-12 (Chiranjeev), as a result of injuries inflicted by the respondents, he suffered a fracture of the radius and ulna bones of the left hand. The deceased-Laxman was initially examined by the doctors and was discharged after treatment. But, on 2nd November 1989, he complained of vomiting, headache, and dizziness. He was admitted to the district hospital Chhatarpur and was discharged on 15th November 1989. While returning home from the hospital on 15th November 1989, his condition deteriorated, and he complained of severe headache. He was admitted to the Chandla Hospital, where he died on the same night. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 (accused nos. 3 and 5, respectively) had ballams, and the remaining accused had sticks in their hands. The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, including the injured eyewitnesses.
SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- State pointed out that even assuming that the offence under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was made out, the respondents were let off with undergone sentence of only seventy-six days. He submitted that conversion of the offence punishable under Section 302 into an offence under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was not justified. Only because there was a time gap of fifteen days from the date of assault to the date of death of the deceased, it cannot be said that the offence punishable under Sect
Appeal against conviction – Right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail – It is desirable that certain categ....
Hurt – Merely because no fracture was found cannot take case out of Section 302 IPC when deceased died due to head injury. Merely because deceased died after six days could not have been ground to se....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the intention and knowledge of the accused in causing the death of the deceased, and the application of relevant case laws to ....
Once prosecution establishes existence of three ingredients forming a part of “thirdly” in Section 300 of IPC, it is irrelevant whether there was an intention on part of accused to cause death – It d....
Sentence – Principle of Proportionality should guide sentencing process – Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as well as prevent guilty party from repeating off....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following proper procedures and accurately determining the appropriate section of the IPC based on the evidence and circumstances....
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – In a group fight, kind and nature of individual act in commission of offence would matter and guilt or otherwise of accused would have to be accordingly as....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of intention to cause death influenced the court's decision to alter the appellant's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(II....
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden quarrel without any premeditation is not murder.
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
