Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 994
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
Shantanu Kemkar, M.C.Garg, JJ.
Sukhlal - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1009-2005, From the Judgment and Order dated 30-8-2005 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sendhwa in S.T. No. 158-2004
Decided On : 24-06-2013
For the Appellant :Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Deepak Rawal, Govt. Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the interpretation of the injury causing death in the ordinary course of nature.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - [302] - The judgment discusses the weapon used for causing injury, the medical evidence, and the applicability of Section 302 vs. Section 304-I of IPC. The court considered the intention behind the injury, the nature of the injury, and the circumstances leading to the injury.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of the deceased by inflicting a single injury. The prosecution's case was based on the use of a pechcus as the weapon of offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including witness statements and medical testimony, to determine the nature of the injury, the intention behind it, and the applicability of different sections of the IPC.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the injury, the intention behind it, and whether the conviction under Section 302 of IPC was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the applicability of Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC, and the interpretation of the injury causing death in the ordinary course of nature.
Final Decision: The court converted the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of IPC, considering the circumstances, the nature of the injury, and the lack of intention to cause death. The appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
M.C. Garg, J.
This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid criminal appeal which arises out of the judgment dated 30-8-2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sendhwa in S.T. No. 158/2004 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional RI.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 23-4-2004 complainant-Gyansingh lodged a report at Police Station, Sendhwa that on 22-4-2004 at about 9.30 p.m., there was a marriage in the house of Jagdish where his brother Shankar and family members were also present. Sukhlal also came to attend the marriage. Near about 15 months before Sukhlal committed rape on the daughter of Shankar which matter was settled in the Panchayat. While Sukhlal was dancing, Shankar hit him on the head with a torch. In turn, Sukhlal also gave Gupti blow on the chest of Shankar due to which he fell on the ground. One Dursingh took him to Sendhwa Hospital where doctor declared him dead. On the basis of the report, police registered the offence and body was sent for post-mortem. FIR in this case was registered as Crime No. 104/2004 at the instance of Gyansingh, who has appeared as P.W. 4. In his statement Shri Gyansingh deposed as under:--
XXX XXX XXX
3. After the registration of the FIR, police investigated the matter. During the course of investigation recorded the statement of various witnesses including eye-witnesses namely Gyansingh, Dursingh, Ranglibai and Roomsingh. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of Dr. M.C. Verma, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. After filing of the challan, the case was committed for trial to Sessions. The appellant denied the charges and faced the trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses namely Dursingh s/o Gatu (P.W. 1), Ikalya (P.W. 2), Jagdish (P.W. 3), Gyansingh (P.W. 4), Dursingh s/o Reechha (P.W. 5), Ranglibai (P.W. 6), Jaimal (P.W. 7), Roomsingh (P.W. 8), Chamariya (P.W. 9), M.C. Verma (P.W. 10) and Anil Singh (P.W. 11), out of whom Dursingh (P.W. 1), Gyansingh (P.W. 4), Ranglibai (P.W. 6) and Roomsingh (P.W. 8) are the eye-witnesses.
5. Statement of Dursingh and Gyansingh is relevant which is reproduced for the sake of reference. Dursingh in his statement has deposed as under:--
XXX XXX XXX
Thus from his statement it was not clear as to whether the weapon used was pechcus or Gupti.
6. The next witness Gyansingh in his statement deposed as under:--
XXX XXX XXX
His statement is in line with the statement of Dursingh. Some portion of the cross-examination of Gyansingh is also relevant which is reproduced hereunder:--
XXX XXX XXX
7. The statement of these two witnesses shows that they were not sure as to what weapon was used for the purpose of causing injury to the deceased. According to the prosecution, only pechcus was recovered at the instance of the appellant which they have relied upon as a weapon of offence. The statement of these witnesses clearly shows that only one injury was caused by the appellant that also after he was hit by the torch by Shankar, the deceased. The appellant has denied the version of the prosecution and as such he has been falsely implicated. He has also examined two defence witnesses Foolsingh (D.W. 1) and Munna @ Munta (D.W. 2).
8. The learned Single Judge, after holding the trial convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC and has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional RI.
9. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge in having found the appellant guilty appears in Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 which are reproduced hereunder:--
XXX XXX XXX
10. A perusal of these paragraphs goes to show that in the incident the appellant used apechcus which is the weapon recovered from him after the deceased hit on his head with a torch. This fact f
