Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
A.M. Khanwilkar, Sanjay Yadav, JJ.
Jan and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1436, 1514, 1527, 1586, 1626, 1690, 1720, 1782, 1871-2003 and 516-2006
Decided On : 03-02-2015
Unlawful Assembly - Attempt to Murder - IPC Sections 148, 307, 149 - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, and attempted to murder the complainant. The court upheld the convictions of some accused while acquitting others based on the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from judgments convicting and sentencing ten individuals for attempt to murder by forming an unlawful assembly. The prosecution's case was that the accused, armed with weapons, attacked the complainant at his shop, resulting in injuries. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution presented 15 witnesses, including eyewitnesses and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the accused's involvement in forming an unlawful assembly and attempting to murder the complainant. The court upheld the convictions of some accused based on the evidence presented, while acquitting others due to doubts about their participation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the establishment of an unlawful assembly, the accused's participation in the attack, and the credibility of the witnesses' testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses, medical reports, and the nature of the attack to establish the accused's involvement in forming an unlawful assembly and attempting to murder the complainant. The court also considered discrepancies in the testimonies and acquitted some accused based on doubts about their participation.
Final Decision: The court upheld the convictions of some accused and acquitted others based on the evidence presented. The appeals of the acquitted individuals were allowed, and their convictions and sentences were set aside.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. At the outset, it may be mentioned that batch of these appeals arising out of judgments dated 30.8.2003 and 6.3.2006 passed in S.T. No. 220/1997 being clubbed with batch of other appeals viz. Cri. Appeal Nos. 1437/2003, 1513/2003, 1528/2003, 1625/2003, 1648/2003, 1649/2003, 1691/2003, 1707/2003, 1708/2003, 1771/2003 and 1876/2003, arising out of S.T. No. 218/1997 and S.T. No. 219/1997, are analogously heard and are, therefore, being decided by two separate judgments. The present judgment will govern disposal of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1436/2003, 1514/2003, 1527/2003, 1586/2003, 1626/2003, 1690/2003, 1720/2003, 1782/2003, 1871/2003 and 516/2006.
2. These abovementioned appeals are directed against the judgment dated 30.8.2003 and 6.3.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 220/1997 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, indicting ten persons for attempt to murder by forming unlawful assembly. While acquitting one of them (A-10), the trial Judge convicted other ten (arrayed as A-1 to A-9 & A-11) and sentenced as under with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Two judgments are delivered by the trial Court. Whereas, against A-1 to A-9 and A-11 (as they were before the trial Court), the judgment was delivered on 30.8.2003 and in respect of accused Chunnu @ Anwar Khan Son of Sher Ali and Tarzen @ Afroz Khan son of Sufiyan Khan, they were tried after the delivery of judgment on 30.8.2003 and were indicted for an offence under Sections148 read with 307 read with 149 of IPC by judgment dated 6.3.2006. These appeals are, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
4. It is informed that accused Tarjen, appellant no. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 516/2006, died during pendency of appeal.
5. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.2.1997 at about 5.30 p.m. all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with katta (country made pistol), sword, iron rod and gupti, descended upon the shop of Brijeshnath Kanojia (PW1) situated inside Dharmashala Gate on three motorcycles and one jeep. Gudda (since absconding) fired Katta, which misfired, others attacked PW1 with sword, rod and gupti, as a result whereof, PW1 sustained injuries. PW1 after saving himself behind the counter where he was sitting, extricated himself, ran towards the terrace where he was followed by the miscreants. PW1 jumped into the neighbour's house and got himself locked in room of the house belonging to Jagdish (PW2). The miscreants followed him till the terrace, then left the place. PW1 was taken to Police Station Civil Lines by his father (PW6) at 5.50 p.m. whereon the FIR was lodged (Ex. P/1). The injured was taken to Government Hospital (Ex. P/14) where, his injuries were attended at by Dr. Manish Kaushal (PW9). The complainant was admitted in the hospital and discharged on 20.2.1997. The injuries noted were - (i) incised wound at right forehead: size 10 x 2 x 2 cm leading to active bleeding part of skull cut, bony deep wound on palpation bony crepitus and (ii) abrasion over right arm, post aspect: size 3 cm covered with clotted blood. As per report (Ex. P/8), the injury no.(i) was grievous in nature. The investigating officer Parmeshwar Urmalia (PW14) seized jeep vide Ex. P/9 and motorcycle bearing registration no. MP-17-Y-2349, prepared map Ex. P/7 at 6.30 a.m. in presence of Gaurishakar and Shyamlal (PW7). Accused persons were arrested. On their memorandum, weapons were seized. On completion of investigation, PW14 submitted charge sheet against A-1 to A-11. Against the accused persons viz. Chunnu @ Anwar Khan Son of Sherali and Tarzen @Afroz Khan Son of Sufiyan Khan, supplementary charge sheet was filed after their arrest.
6. The motive that was attributed to the accused persons for committing the offences was that, there was a previous enmity wherein PW1, the injured-complainant, was a complainant against the acquaintance of the accused persons and the complainant was not withdraw
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
