Jagdish vs State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 598

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(MP) 598

IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESH
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
Jagdish v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2000 (Indore) : against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Indore, passed in
S.T. No.195 of 1997;
Decided on 20.11.2012.

Advocates:
S.C. Shrivastava with Ms. Saroj Mimrot for appellant;
R.S. Bais, Deputy Government Advocate for respondent.

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.299 r/w S.300 Exception 1 and 4, 307 and 308 -- appellant injured the victim on provocation in quarrel -- injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature -- but incident occurred on the spur of moment -- no pre-preparation, premeditation or pre-planning proved -- offence of attempt to murder not made out -- instead, offence of attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder made out -- conviction and sentence modified accordingly.
       Held : Keeping in view aforesaid provision on examining the case, it is apparent fact on record that the alleged incident was not caused by the appellant with any pre-preparation or premeditation or pre-planning. Only on spur of moment on demanding the money by the appellant from his nephew the victim, he refused to give the same, then under such provocation the appellant picked up the scissor the implement of his profession and gave the blows of the same on the person of the victim Hemraj PW2 resultantly, he sustained the injuries.
       In view of the aforesaid discussion, the alleged act of the appellant comes under the category of the attempt to commit the offence of culpable homicide not amounting tomurder defined under section 299 read with Exception No.1 and 4 of section 300 of the IPC and, therefore, in view the above mentioned injury of the victim and the available evidence the appellant is held guilty for the offence of section 308 Part II of the IPC.
       naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 299 lgifBr /kkjk 300 viokn 1 rFkk 4] 307 rFkk 308 && vihykFkhZ u >xM+s esa izdksiu ij ihfM+r dks {kfrxzLr fd;k && {kfr izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr && ijarq] ?kVuk rRdky ?kfVr gqbZ && dksbZ iwoZ&rSkjh] iwoZ&fparu ;k iwoZ&;kstuk lkfcr ugha && gR;k ds iz;kl dk vijk/k ugha cuk && blds ctk,] gR;k dh dksfV esa u vkus okys vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k ds iz;kl dk vijk/k cuk && nks”kflf) rFkk naMkns’k rn~uqlkj mikarfjrA
       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr mica/k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, ekeys dh tk¡p djus ij] vfHkys[k ij ;g Li”V rF; gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk vfHkdfFkr ?kVuk fdlh iwoZ&rSkjh] iwoZ&fparu ;k iwoZ&;kstuk ds lkFk dkfjr ugha dh xbZ FkhA vihykFkhZ }kjk vius Hkrhts] ihfM+r ls /ku dh ek¡x djus ij rRdky gh mlus og nsus ls badkj fd;k] rc bl izdksiu ds v/khu vihykFkhZ us vius O;olk; dk midj.k dSaph mBk;k rFkk ihfM+r gsejkt v lk 2 ds ‘kjhj ij mlds izgkj fd,] ifj.kkeLo:i mls {kfr;k¡ gqbZaA
       iwoksZDr foospuk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq,] vihykFkhZ dk vfHkdfFkr d`R; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 299 lgifBr /kkjk 300 viokn dz- 1 rFkk 4 ds v/khu ifjHkkf”kr gR;k dh dksfV esa u vkus okys vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k dk vijk/k djus ds iz;Ru dh dksfV ds v/khu vkrk gS rFkk] blfy,] ihfM+r dh iwoksZfYyf[kr {kfr rFkk miyC/k lk{; dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, vihykFkhZ dks naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 308 Hkkx 2 ds vijk/k ds fy, nks”kh Bgjk;k tkrk gSA

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The appellant accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.2.2000 passed by Sessions Judge Indore, in S.T. No.195/1997 whereby he has been convicted under section 307 of IPC with a direction to undergo for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of depositing the fine further simple imprisonment for a period of one month has been awarded.

2. The fact giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 23.10.1996 at about 12:30 in the night some police official of Police Station Pardesipura Indore, has drawn up a DehatiNalishi at the instance of one Jayram, the brother of the victims against the appellant for the offence of section 307 of the IPC on which the original Crime No.515/1996 on the same day at the aforesaid police station was registered at about 1:30 in the night. As per averments of the Dehati Nalishi in the beginning part of aforesaid night at about 9 O’clock after taking the meals said complainants had gone to relax. At about 11 O’clock in the night from the house of his brother, Hemraj who is residing nearby he heard the shouting of some quarrel on which he went towards that side. He saw that Hemraj was crying and seeking help to save his life and the appellant Jagdish was standing there with scissor. At the same time with intention to cause death of Hemraj he gave a blow of such scissor on Hemraj by which he sustained injuries at the right side of the stomach. After sustaining such injuries Hemraj ran way to save himself then again a blow of scissor was given by the appellant on his back. He also gave the blows of such implement on the leg and thigh of said Hemraj. Immediately he went to Hemraj to save his life and saw that from the injury of stomach his intestine has come out and hanging. The huge blood has also been profussed then immediately he brought the towel (cloth) and did bandage of such injuries by such towel. Such a incident was also observed by various person of the locality from their own residence. Subsequent to the incident he with the assistance of one Bhim took the victim Hemraj to the M.Y. Hospital. It is further stated that Jagdish was demanding money for liquor and Hemraj was not prepared to give the same. Consequently, the aforesaid blow of the scissors were given by the appellant on the victim with intention to cause his death. The name of Sumitrabai and Gulabbai the mother of the complainant is also stated as a witness of the incident. On reaching the victim to the Hospital his medical examination was carried out and MLC report was prepared. Looking to the nature of the injury, he was admitted in Hospital, his surgery was also carried out. According to the opinion of the doctor the injury sustained by the victim in his stomach was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature. After receiving such report and the papers of the bed head ticket and also on holding the investigation in the matter, the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence of section 307 of the IPC.

3. After committing the case to the Session Court on framing the charge of section 307 of the IPC against the appellant he abjured the guilt on which the trial was directed. After recording the evidence on appreciation of the same by holding the appellant guilty for such offence he was punished with the aforesaid punishment. On which the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal for extending the acquittal.

4. Shri S.C. Shrivastava, learned appearing counsel of the appellant after taking me through the record of the trial Court argued that on taking into consideration the deposition of the victim as well as the complainant Jairam as well as the other witnesses as accepted in its entirety even then the offence of section 307 of the IPC is not made out. He also said that the story put forth by the complainant and the victim is not supported by any independent source of the evidence. He further argued that as per case of the prosecution on account of demand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(MP) 598

IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESHU.C. Maheshwari, J.Jagdish v. State of M.P.Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2000 (Indore) : against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Indore, passed inS.T. No.195 of 1997;Decided on 20.11.2012.

IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESH
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
Jagdish v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2000 (Indore) : against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Indore, passed in
S.T. No.195 of 1997;
Decided on 20.11.2012.