Back
2005(1) JLJ 153
(SUPREME COURT)
Y.K. Sabharwal and H.K. Sema, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Mishrilal and others
Cr. Appeal No. 489 of 1996; against the judgment of M.P. High Court
passed in Cr. Appeal No. 129 of 1991; Decided on 2.4.2003.
The bullock-cart of Babulal (PW 1) being driven by his servant Patiram (PW 3) was stopped by the accused in front of the house of Mishrilal (since deceased). Babulal, thereafter, reversed the bullock-cart, brought back his bullock-cart and reached his house by another route. At that time Maharaj Singh (PW 2), uncle of Babulal (PW 1), Bhavarsingh (the deceased), grandfather of Babulal and Gopal (PW 7) and others were sitting in front of the house of Babulal, who questioned as to why the bullock-cart had to be brought back by different route and at this Babulal narrated to them the story of stoppage of bullock-cart by the respondents. At this moment, accused Mishrilal armed with afarsi, Jamunaprasad armed with a twelve-bore gun, accused Ashok Kumar with a desi katta and rest of the accused-persons having lathis with them came near the house of Babulal hurling abuses, followed by heated exchange of words between both the sides. Then all of a sudden, Jamunaprasad fired a gunshot at Babulal. The pellets hit him in his legs. The deceased Bhavarsingh, grandfather of Babulal tried to save him and stood in front of Babulal, when accused Ashok Kumar fired at him with the desi katta hitting him on the chest. The deceased fell down on the ground and became unconscious. PW 2 Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh PW 4 also came to save Babulal but accused Jamunaprasad fired again hitting Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh. Accused Madhusudan assaulted Babulal by the lathi hitting him on the right shoulder. On raising hue and cry, the accused fled away. The deceased Bhavarsingh was taken to Kannaud Hospital where he was declared dead. [Para 4
Held: There is no explanation about the injuries sustained by the three accused. None of the prosecution witnesses explained the injuries sustained by the accused. The injuries sustained by Mishrilal were dangerous to life. The prosecution witnesses consist of interested and inimical witnesses. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has not presented the true version on most material part of the story. Their evidential value does not inspire confidence and it cannot be accepted on its face value and relied upon. It is in these circumstances that non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused proved fatal to the prosecution case. Judgment of High Court affirmed. [Para 19
(2) Criminal Practice -- accused pleading he was not present on spot -- desi katta alleged to have been fired by him causing death -- seizure memo doubtful -- no mention of desi katta in information to police by doctor -- opinion of ballistics expert not obtained n accused did not receive any injury while his two brothers received simple injuries in salvaging father who sustained 5 injuries dangerous to life -- presence becomes doubtful.
[Para 14
(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss, 149, 147 and 148 -- five persons roped in -- did not participate in commission of any act -- standing behind at a short distance -- cannot be termed as members of unlawful assembly -- their conviction is not permissible with the aid of S. 149. [Para 15
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss, 100 and 101 -- accused and their father received injuries, some of which on vital part and grievous in nature -- fired gun and caused injuries to aggressor prosecution party -- right of self defence available. [Para 16
(5) Criminal Practice -- accused persons receiving fatal and simple injuries -- explanation desired to be furnished according to defence set up, but not furnished -- it is fatal defect in prosecution case. (1976) 4 SCC 394, (1968) 3 SCR 525 and AIR 1991 SC 1065 relied on. [Paras 17 & 18
(6) Criminal Trial -- cross-cases arising out of same incident -should be tried by one Court irrespective of nature of offences. 1990 Supp. SCC 145 relied on. [Para 8
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 156 -- cross-cases -- two F1Rs -investigating officer is to make an endeavour to find out truth and cut out the truth from falsehood. [Para 8
(8) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 310 -- evidence of witness inconsistent -- with spot map -- spot inspection done by trial Court -- memorandum should be prepared and filed in record -- reasons for spot inspection should also be recorded -- it is mandatory. [Para 9
(9) Criminal Practice -- investigation suggesting complainant party was aggressor -- evidence and material on record establishing prosecution party as aggressor -- prosecution suppressed genesis and origin of occurrence. [Para 11
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302@149] 137@149 rFkk 148 && ds v/khu vijk/k && vfHk;qDrx.k] ds ‘kjhj ij igq¡ph {kfr;ksa dk Li"Vhdj.k ugha && vfHk;kstui{k ds lk{khx.k dh vfHk;qDrx.k ls ‘k=qrk && vfHk;kstui{k us dgkuh ds lokZf/kd rkfRod Hkkx dk lgh o`Ùkkar izLrqr ugha fd;k && nks"kflf) dk;e ugha j[kh tk ldrhA
ckcwyky ¼v lk 1½ ds lsod ikrhjke ¼v lk 3½ }kjk pykbZ tk jgh ckcwyky dh cSyxkM+h feJhyky ¼vc e`r½ ds ?kj ds lkeus vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk jksdh xbZA rRi‘pkr~ ckcwyky us cSyxkM+h iyVh] mls ykSVk;k rFkk ,d vU; ekxZ ,d vU; ekxZ ls og vius ?kj igq¡p x;kA ml le; ckcwyky ¼v lk 1½ dk dkdj egkjktflag ¼v lk 2½] ckcwyky dk firkeg Hkjoflag ¼e`r½] xksiky ¼v lk 7½ rFkk vU; yksx ckcwyky ds edku ds lkeus cSBs Fks] ftUgksaus iz‘u fd;k fd cSyxkM+h fHkUu ekxZ ls D;ksa ykuk iMh+ rFkk bl ij ckcwyky us mUgsa izR;fFkZ;ksa }kjk cSyxkM+h jksds tkus dh dFkk lqukbZA mlh {k.k Qjlh ls l‘kó vfHk;qDr feJhyky] 12&cksj canwd ls l‘kó tequkizlkn] nslh dÍk fd, vfH;qDr v‘kksd dqekj rFkk ykfB;k¡ fy, gq, ‘ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k] vi‘‘kCn dgrs gq, ckcwyky ds edku ds lehi igq¡ps rFkk fQj nksuksa i{kksa esa mÙkstukiw.kZ dgk & lquh gqbZA fQj vpkud tequkizlkn us ckcwyky ij canwd ls xksyh pyk nhA xksfy;k¡ ckcwyky ds iSjksa esa yxhA ckcwyky ds firkeg e`r Hkojflag us mls cpkus dk iz;kl fd;k rFkk mld lkeus [kM+k gks x;k] rc vfHk;qDr v‘kksd dqekj us ml] ij nslh dÍs ls xksyh pykbZ tks mlds o{k ij yxhA e`rd Hkfe ij fxj x;k vkSj vpsr gks x;kA v lk 2 egkjktflag rFkk v lk 4 dj.kflag Hkh ckcwyky dks cpkus vk, ijarq tequkizlkn us iqu% egkjktflag vkSj dj.kflag ij xksyh pyk nhA vfHk;qDr e/kqlnu us ckcwyky ds nkfgus da/ks ij okj djrs gq, geyk fd;kA ‘kksj epkus ij vfHk;qDrx.k Hkkx x,A e`rd Hkojflag dks dékSn vLirky ys tk;k x;k tgk¡ mls e`r ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;kA ¿ iSjk 4À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % rhu vfHk;qDrksa dks igq¡ph {kfr;ksa ds ckjs es dksbZ Hkh Li"Vhdj.k ugha gSA vfHk;kstui{k ds lkf{k;ksa esa ls fdlh us Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k dks igq¡ph {kfr;ksa ds fy, Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k gSA feJhyky dks igq¡ph {kfr;k¡ thou ds fy, [krjukd FkhaA vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k esa fgrc) vkSj ‘k=qrkiw.kZ Lkk{kh gSA vr%] gekjh jk; gS fd vfHk;kstui{k us dgkuh ds lokZf/kd rkfRod Hkkx dk lgh o`Ùkkar izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA mlds lkf{;d ewY; ls fo‘okl mRiUu ugha gksrk rFkk mls izR;{k ewY; ij Lohdkj dj mldk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] vfHk;qDrx.k dks igq¡ph {kfr;k¡ Li"Vhd`r ugha dh tkuk vfHk;kstu i{kdFku ds fy, ?kkrd lkfcr gqvkA mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"V ¿ iSjk 19À
¼2½ nkafMd izFkk && vfHk;qDr dk vfHkokd~ fd og LFky ij mifLFkr ugha Fkk && mlds }kjk e`R;q dkfjr djrs gq, nslh dÍk pyk;k tkuk vfHkdfFkr && vfHkxzg.k Kkiu lansgkLin && fpfdRld }kjk iqfyl dks nh xbZ tkudkjh esa nslh dÍs dk mYys[k ugha && izk{ksfidh fo‘ks"kK dh jk; vfHkizkIr ugha dh xbZ && vfHk;qDr dks dksbZ Hkh {kfr ugha igq¡ph tcfd mlds firk dks] ftls thou ds fy, [krjukd 5 {kfr;k¡ igq¡ph Fkha] cpkus es mlds nks Hkkb;ksa dks lknk {kfr;k¡ && mifLFkfr lafnX/k gks tkrh gSA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 149] 147 rFkk 148 && ik¡p O;fDr vkfyIr && dksbZ Hkh d`R; djus esa Hkkx ugha fy;k && FkksM+h nwjh ij ihNs [kMs+ Fks && fof/kfo#) teko ds lnL; ugha dgs tk ldrs && /kkjk 149 dh lgk;rk ls mudh nks"kflf) vuqKs; ughaA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 100 rFkk 101 && vfHk;qDrx.k vkSj muds firk dks {kfr;k¡] igq¡ph] ftuesa ls dqN egRoiw.kZ vax ij rFkk xaHkhj izd`fr dh && vkØked vfHk;kstu ny ij canwd pykbZ vkSj {kfr;k¡ dkfjr dha && vkRe izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj miyC/k gSA ¿ iSjk 16À
¼5½ nkafMd izFkk && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dk ?kkrd rFkk lknk {kfr;k¡ igq¡ph && izLrqr dh xbZ izfrj{kk ds vuqlkj Li"Vhdj.k fn;k tkuk bZfIlr ijarq Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k && vfHk;kstu i{kdFku esa ?kkrd =qfV gSA ¼1976½ 4 ,l lh lh 394] 1968 ¼3½ ,l lh vkj 525 rFkk , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 1065 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 17 ,oa 18À
¼6½ nkafMd fopkj.k && ,d&gh ?kVuk ls mn~Hkwr izfr&ekeys && vijk/kksa ds Lo:i ls fujis{k] ,d&gh U;k;ky; }kjk fopkj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1990 lIyh- ,l lh lh 145 voyafcrA
¿ iSjk 8À
¼7½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 && izfr&ekeys && nks izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ && vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dks lR; [kkst fudkyus rFkk feF;k esa ls lR; rjk‘k dj fudkyus dk iz;Ru djuk gksrk gSA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼8½ nkafMd izFkk && vUos"k.k ls bafxr fd ifjoknhi{k vkØked Fkk && vfHkys[kxr lk{; vkSj lkexzh ls vfHk;kstui{k vkØked LFkkfir && vfHk;kstui{k us ?kVuk dh mRifÙk vkSj ewy fNik;kA
¿ iSjk 11À
Serna, J. -- 1. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the State against the judgment of the High Court whereby and whereunder the sentences and convictions imposed by the trial Court have been set aside by allowing the appeal, preferred by the accused.
2. The accused Mishrilal s/o Balmukund Jaiswal, Madhusudan s/o Mishrilal, Jamunaprasad s/o Mishrilal, Radhakishan s/o Ganpat Kalal, Vinod Kumar s/o Babulal Kalal, Hukumchand s/o Shankerlal Kalal, Jagdish s/o Shankarlal Kalal, Rajendra Kumar s/o Babulal Kalal and Ashok Kumar s/o Mishrilal Kalal were tried in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1987 whereby the second Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas, convicted accused Ashok under sections 302, 307 read with sections 149 and 148, IPC, and section 25 of Arms Act; accused Jamunaprasad under section 307, 302 read with sections 149 and 148, IPC, and the remaining accused under section 302 read with sections 149, 307 read with section 149 and section 148 of the IPC and sentenced all the accused .to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default to undergo imprisonment for one month under section 148, IPC; sentenced accused Ashok to suffer imprisonment for life under section 302, IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to suffer three months imprisonment and to suffer RI for five years under section 307 read with section 149, IPC, and to suffer RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer one month imprisonment under section 25 of the Arms Act, sentenced accused Jarnunaprasad to suffer RI for• five years under section 307 and imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 149, IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to suffer three months' imprisonment and sentenced remaining 7 accused to suffer imprisonment for life and -to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default to suffer imprisonment for three months under section 302 read with section 149, IPC, and to undergo RI for five years under section 307 read with section 149 IPC.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, accused Mishrilal has expired and therefore, the appeal qua him stands abated.
4. The apple of discord, as revealed by the prosecution story, was over a trivial matter about the passing of bullock-cart. The bullock-cart of Babulal (PW 1) being driven by his servant Patiram (PW 3) was stopped by the accused in front of the house of Mishrilal (since deceased). Babulal, thereafter, reversed the bullock-cart, brought back his bullock-cart and reached his house by another route. At that time Maharaj Singh (PW 2), uncle of Babulal (PW 1), Bhavarsingh (the deceased), grandfather of Babulal and Gopal (PW 7) and others were sitting in front of the house of Babulal, who questioned as to why the bullock-cart had to be brought back by different route and at this Babulal narrated to them the story of stoppage of bullock-cart by the respondents. At this moment, accused Mishrilal armed with a farsi, Jamunaprasad armed with a twelve-bore gun, accused Ashok Kumar with a desi katta and rest of the accused-persons having lathis with them came near the house of Babulal hurling abuses, followed by heated exchange of words between both the sides. Then all of a sudden, Jamunaprasad fired a gunshot at Babulal. The pellets hit him in his legs. The deceased Bhavarsingh, grandfather of Babulal tried to save him and stood in front of Babulal, when accused Ashok Kumar fired at him with the desi katta hitting him on the chest. The deceased fell down on the ground and became unconscious. PW 2 Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh PW 4 also came to save Babulal but accused Jamunaprasad fired again hitting Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh. Accused Madhusudan assaulted Babulal by the lathi hitting him on the right shoulder. On raising hue and cry, the accused fled away. The deceased Bhavarsingh was taken to Kannod Hospital where he was declared dead. Injured Babulal, Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh were admitted in the hospital and treated. Dr. G.D. Kashyap (PW 6), se
SupremeToday
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
