Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 983
R.P. Awasthy, R Gupta
Ramadhin S/O Ghoor Sahu
vs
State Of Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : 21 November, 1995
The prosecution is not required to explain every injury found on the person of the accused, even when it may be very insignificant or superficial in nature.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE - LEGAL INSANITY - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE - EXPLANATION OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE ACCUSED - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 105 - BURDEN OF PROOF - MEDICAL INSANITY VERSUS LEGAL INSANITY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 84 IPC - MENTAL DISTURBANCE - MOTIVE - CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for inflicting fatal injuries on the deceased, Punitram, with an axe. The prosecution case was that the appellant had a dispute with the deceased and had threatened to harm him. On the day of the incident, the appellant armed with an axe, attacked the deceased while he was walking with a witness, Jagdev. Jagdev fled the scene, while the appellant continued to inflict injuries on the deceased. The appellant was apprehended by two other witnesses, Ramkumar and Chandrahas, who witnessed the attack. The appellant sustained minor injuries during the apprehension. The defense argued that the appellant was mentally disturbed at the time of the incident and that he did not have the necessary intention or knowledge to commit the offense. The defense also argued that the appellant acted in self-defense and that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder. The court found that the appellant had the necessary intention or knowledge to commit the offense, as evidenced by the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the deceased. The court also found that the appellant's conduct was not consistent with that of a person who was mentally disturbed or insane. The court further held that the appellant had not acted in self-defense and that the prosecution was not required to explain the minor injuries sustained by the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder. 2. Whether the appellant had the necessary intention or knowledge to commit the offense. 3. Whether the appellant was mentally disturbed or insane at the time of the incident. 4. Whether the appellant acted in self-defense. 5. Whether the prosecution was required to explain the minor injuries sustained by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder based on the following evidence: - The appellant had a dispute with the deceased and had threatened to harm him. - The appellant was armed with an axe when he attacked the deceased. - The appellant inflicted multiple fatal injuries on the deceased. - The appellant continued to inflict injuries on the deceased even after the deceased was lying on the ground. - The appellant was apprehended by two witnesses who witnessed the attack. 2. The court found that the appellant had the necessary intention or knowledge to commit the offense based on the following evidence: - The nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on the deceased indicated that the appellant intended to kill him. - The appellant's conduct was not consistent with that of a person who was mentally disturbed or insane. 3. The court found that the appellant was not mentally disturbed or insane at the time of the incident based on the following evidence: - There was no evidence that the appellant had a history of mental illness. - The appellant's conduct before, during, and after the incident was not consistent with that of a person who was mentally disturbed or insane. 4. The court found that the appellant had not acted in self-defense based on the following evidence: - The appellant was the aggressor in the attack. - The appellant continued to inflict injuries on the deceased even after the deceased was lying on the ground. - The appellant did not sustain any serious injuries during the incident. 5. The court held that the prosecution was not required to explain the minor injuries sustained by the appellant because: - The injuries were superficial and did not require medical attention. - The injuries could have been sustained during the apprehension of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
R.P. Awasthy, J.
1. It is an appeal against holding of the accused appellant-guilty for committing an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Prosecution case is that on 17-12-1985 at about 7.00 p.m., Ramadhin was running here and there while armed with an axe. Punitram (since deceased) and Jagdev (PW/2) followed the accused with the object of snatching axe from him, lest he might cause any injury to anyone. They met the accused on a turning of lane where the accused/appellant dealt a blow by means of an axe on the head of Punitram. The said incident was witnessed by Jagdev (PW/2) Ramkumar Sahu (PW/6), and Chandrahas (PW/7). When Tulsiram (PW/1) came to know about the said incident, he came to the place of incident and found that there was an injury on the head of Punitram, which was profusely bleeding. Tulsiram took Punitram to Government Hospital, Dhamtari, but on medically examining Punitram, the doctor on duty declared him as dead. Thereafter on 17-12-1985 itself at 9.00 p.m. Tulsiram (PW/1) lodged the first information report (Ex.P/1) at police station Arjuni. On the same date, Shri S. N. Pateria (PW/16), reached the place of the incident after recording the said first information report. He seized blood stained and plain earth from the place of the incident as per seizure memo (Ex.P/5).
3. Immediately, after the incident, the accused was apprehended by Chandrahas (PW/7) and Ramkumar (PW/6). They pressed accused Ramadhin against the well. At that time Jagdev, who had fled away from the place of the incident immediately when the accused had dealt a blow by means of an axe on the head of Punitram, returned to the place of the incident. Ramkumar and Chandrahas asked Jagdev (PW/2) to snatch the blood stained axe from the accused. Jagdev snatched the said axe, and then Ramkumar took the accused away from the said place. Thereafter, at the cross road of the same village Potiyadih, Jagdev entrusted the said axe to Chandrahas (PW/7). Chandrahas entrusted the said axe to Pyari Kotwar (PW/8), who came at the place of the incident on receiving the information about it. In turn, when Sub-Inspector, Shri S. N. Pateria (PW/16), came to the place of incident Pyari Kotwar (PW/8) handed over the said axe to Shri Pateria, who seized the said blood stained axe as per seizure memo (Ex.P/2).
4. Thereafter, on 18-12-1985, Shri S. N. Pateria (PW/16) conducted death inquest as per seizure memo (Ex.P/4) at Police Station Arjuni and soon thereafter, the dead body of Punitram was sent to Government Hospital, Dhamtari, where doctor A. Quadeer (PW/15), conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Punitram. Dr. Quadeer found that all the 3 layers of the brain were cut and there was fracture of skull bone. There were multiple fractures on the ribs Nos. 6 to 10, on right side, and the right lung was also injured and was deeply congested below the fractured ribs. There-was rupture of upper lobe of liver as well.
5. Blood stained clothes of deceased Punitram were seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/6). One underwear was seized from the person of the accused as per seizure memo (Ex.P/18). The accused also complained that he had sustained some injuries. He was sent to Civil Hospital, Dhamtari, where he was medically examined by doctor A. K. Rawat, on 19-12-1985 at 1.45 p.m., who found that the accused was complaining pain on his back, and abrasion with scab formation over left shoulder region and abrasion with scab formation over left buttock were found. In the opinion of doctor Rawat, the said injuries were of 24 to 36 hours duration.
6. After completion of investigation, a report under section 173, Criminal Procedure Code was filed in the Competent Court. The accused denied the said allegations and submitted that he did not know anything about the incident. He was lying unconscious as Jagdev had beaten him. Punitram intervened in the said incident and therefore, he susta
