IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.K. Gupta and Anand Pathak, JJ.
Kallu @ Kammod Rawat @ Kalyan and others v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.610 of 1998 (Gwalior) : against the judgment dated 20.11.1998, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No.88 of 1995; Decided on 19.1.2017
Held : On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, neither any acceptable ocular evidence was present in the case nor chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. Prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the appellants have participated in killing the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. They could not be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC or any inferior offence of the same nature either directly or with help of section 34 of IPC. The trial Court has committed an error in convicting them for two count charges of section 302 or 302 read with section 34 of IPC. AIR 1976 SC 2423, AIR 1974 SC 1193, AIR 1975 SC 1400 and AIR 1993 SC 2457 followed. AIR 2003 SC 854 and AIR 1982 SC 839 referred to. [Para 20
naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 lgifBr /kkjk 34 & mica/kksa ds v/khu vijk/k & vkthou dkjkokl ds fy, nks"kfl} rFkk naMkfn"V & vihy ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; dh Ja[kyk VwVh gqbZ & vfHk;kstu }kjk dksbZ ifjfLFkfr fl} ugha ftlls ;g dgk tk lds fd vihykFkhZx.k og O;fDr Fks ftUgksaus e`rd O;fDr;ksa dk o/k fd;k & mUgsa mica/k ds v/khu nks"kfl} ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mUgsa nks"kfl} Bgjkus esa =qfV dkfjr dh & vihy eatwj & nks"kflf} rFkk naMkfn"V vikLr & vihykFkhZx.k nks"keqDrA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr fopkj&foe'kZ ds vk/kkj ij] uk rks ekeys esa dksbZ Lohdkj djus ;ksX; lk{; mifLFkr Fkk vkSj u ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; dh Ja[kyk iw.kZ gSA vfHk;kstu ;g fl} djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk fd vihykFkhZx.k us e`rd yksdsanz flag rFkk ijeky flag dk o/k djus esa Hkkx fy;kA os HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu ;k dksbZ Hkh ,d gh izd`fr dk fud`"V vijk/k izR;{k :i ls ;k HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 34 dh lgk;rk ls nks"kfl} ugha fd, tk ldrsA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mUgsa HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 302 lgifBr /kkjk 34 ds nks vkjksiksa ds fy, nks"kfl} Bgjkus esa =qfV dkfjr dhA , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 2423] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1193] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1400 rFkk , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 2457 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 854 rFkk , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 839 fufnZ"VA
Gupta, J. -- 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No.88/1995, whereby all of the appellants have been convicted of offence under section 302 read with section 34 (two count) of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- on each count of charge. Default sentence in lieu of payment of fine was also prescribed.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the deceased Lokendra Singh was facing a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra that he abducted wife of appellant No.3 Preetam and committed rape upon her. On 13.2.1995 the deceased Lokendra along with the deceased Parmal Singh went to attend the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra and on that day, they stayed at Dabra in the night, thereafter on 14.2.1995 deceased Lokendra Singh, Parmal Singh along with the witness Parashram (PW13) went to the house of Manju and appellant No.3 Preetam to have a talk of compromise. They reached village Girwani at about 4 to 5 p.m. in the evening and they took dinner in the house of appellant No.3 Preetam and stayed in the night. When they talked about the compromise then appellants No.2, 3 and 4 have replied that compromise should be dependent upon appellant No.1 Kallu @ Kammod and, therefore, appellant No.4 Pappu @ Shivraj Singh was sent to village Amrol to bring the appellant No.1 Kallu @ Kamood. On 15.2.1995 at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning deceased Lokendra Singh, Parmal Singh and witness Parashram (PW13) were seated in a room in the house of appellant No.3 Preetam then Preetam told about the arrival of the appellant Kallu @ Kammod and Shivraj. Thereafter, all of the accused persons had a talk in a separate room. Again at about 10:30 a.m., the appellants came inside the room and held Parashram (PW13) and thereafter the accused persons held Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and tied their hands on their back and, thereafter they took them on the public way by beating them. Various villagers gathered at the spot thereafter the appellants Kallu and Preetam assaulted the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh by axes, whereas Shivraj assaulted with a heavy wooden log and Ramjilal assaulted with a stick to the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh. In the meantime, Ramjilal held witness Parashram. After beating when Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh fell down on the ground, Kallu gave a blow of axe to the deceased Lokendra Singh causing injury on his jaw. The appellant Preetam gave a blow of axe on the head of Lokendra Singh as well as Parmal Singh. Lokendra Singh died at the spot whereas Parmal Singh dragged for a short distance and thereafter he died. Parashram (PW13) thereafter had escaped and ran towards the forest. He was chased by the appellants but he could not be caught. Ultimately Parashram went to the Police Station Govardhan at about 2:10 p.m. and lodged the FIR Ex.P-20 before the SHO R.P. Mishra (PW16). SHO R.P. Mishra visited the spot and took the dead bodies of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh for their post-mortem and their bodies were sent for post-mortem. Dr. A.K. Morya (PW1) performed the post-mortem on the bodies of the deceased Lokendra Singh and Parmal Singh and gave his report Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. Four injuries were found on the deceased Lokendra Singh. Out of them, two were incised wounds found on the mandible area, whereas one contusion was found below the left eyelid and one contusion was found on the parietal portion of the head. The deceased Lokendra Singh died due to various injuries caused to him. Dr. Morya gave a report Ex.P-2 relating to Parmal Singh. He found three contusions on him. Out of them, one contusion was on his head and the deceased Parmal Singh died due to head injury. Thereafter the appellants were arrested and various weapons were recovered from them. However, no forensic science laboratory's report was
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.