Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
N. K. Gupta, Anand Pathak, JJ.
Bhagwanlal and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 70, 85, 120 and 125 of 1999
Decided on : 10-02-2017
Right of Private Defence - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302, Section 149, Section 148 - The judgment discusses the right of private defence in the context of a case involving a fatal assault. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellants were entitled to the right of private defence. It also discussed the constitution of unlawful assembly and the specific roles of the appellants in the incident. The court acquitted some appellants and convicted others under different sections of the IPC based on their individual actions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal assault on Bhaiyalal by the appellants, who were convicted under IPC Section 302 or 302 r/w 149 and Section 148. The prosecution's case was based on witness testimonies and medical evidence, and the appellants claimed the right of private defence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were entitled to the right of private defence and acquitted some appellants while convicting others under different sections of the IPC based on their individual actions.
Issues: The main issues included the right of private defence, constitution of unlawful assembly, and the specific roles of the appellants in the fatal assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of evidence, witness testimonies, and medical reports to determine the applicability of the right of private defence and the individual culpability of the appellants.
Final Decision: The court acquitted some appellants and convicted others under different sections of the IPC based on their individual actions.
N.K. Gupta, J
1. All the appeals are connected with the common judgment dated 30/01/1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Guna (MP) in Sessions Trial No.111/1994, hence, the present appeals are hereby disposed off, by the present common judgment.
2. The appellants have challenged judgment dated 30-01-1999, being aggrieved with their conviction of offence under Section 302 or 302 r/w 149 and Section 148 of IPC, whereas each of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-and three years” rigorous imprisonment respectively.
3. Prosecution’s case, in short, is that on 23-03-1994 at about 09:00 pm complainant Shivcharan (PW-1) along-with deceased-Bhaiyalal etc. were present at their field at Village Sakatpur. They were sitting near the well. At about 09:00 pm, appellants-Kallu, Harkishan and Jai Singh went to that field having a bullock cart. They tried to pass the bullock cart through the field of deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, Bhaiyalal went near the bullock cart and prohibited them to pass the bullock cart through his field. The appellant-Kallu gave a blow of ''ballam'' causing injury near the ear of deceased-Bhaiyalal. On shouting of Bhaiyalal, witnesses Shivcharan (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-5) and Jamunalal (PW-8) went to the spot. When they asked the appellants as to why Kallu assaulted deceased-Bhaiyalal, then they started quarrel. On shouting of Kallu, other appellants, namely, Haricharnan, Kamal Singh, Laxman Singh, Lal Singh, Mangilal, Bhagwanlal, Toran and Ramcharan came to the spot. Bhagwanlal and Mangilal exhorted their companions and they started causing assault upon Jamunalal, Bhaiyalal, Radheshyam and others. Appellants-Toran Singh and Harkishan gave blows of sticks on the deceased Bhaiyalal, whereas the remaining appellants caused injuries to other victims like Shivcharan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal etc. Due to such assaults done by the appellants, Bhaiyalal had expired at the spot. Shivcharan could not visit the police station due to fear of the appellants, whereas the appellants ran away with the help of a tractor of Man Singh.
4. On intimation given to the police, SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-12) from Police Station Vijaypur, (District Guna) visited village Sakatpur and complainant-Shivcharan (PW1) had lodged a Dehati Nalishi (FIR) Ex.P-1. He prepared the memo of position of the dead body of deceased Bhaiyalal as Ex.P-3 and the body of deceased Bhaiyalal was sent for postmortem, whereas the injured persons were sent for their medico-legal examination. Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW9) performed postmortem on the body of deceased-Bhaiyalal and gave a report Ex.P-25. He found only three injuries to deceased Bhaiyalal, one was on his left pinna, second was on back of left ear, which was bone deep, and third was a contusion on tempo-parietal region. On opening the body, he found that below the third injury there was a fracture of tempo-parietal bone and due to head injury, deceased-Bhaiyalal had died. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW-13) examined victims Lalliram, Shivcharan(PW-1) and Jamunalal (PW-8) and gave reports Ex.P/47-A to Ex.P/49-A. He found as many as ten injuries to victim Jamunalal. Dr. R.K. Jain (PW-7) examined victim-Jamunalal radio-logically and gave a report Ex.P-14. A fracture of fifth metacarpal bone was found to the victim Jamunalal.
5. The SHO-Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW-10) picked up the blood stained and ordinary soil from the spot and seizure memo Ex.P-5 was prepared. He also prepared spot map Ex.P-27. He arrested various appellants and recorded their memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Various weapons like ballam, luhangi and lathis (sticks) were recovered from various appellants. The seized articles were sent for Forensic Science analysis. However, till the decision of the case, no report of Forensic Science Laboratory was produced. Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed before JMFC Raghogarh, Guna, who committed the case to the Court of Session.
6. The appellants took a plea that t
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
