MADHYA BHARAT HIGH COURT, (FULL BENCH), GWALIOR BENCH
DIXIT, MEHTA, CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Fakirchand - Appellant
Vs.
The State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1949
Decided On : 17-12-1949
S.385 - Conviction under S.385, Gwalior Penal Code - S.292, Gwalior Penal Code, S.302, Indian Penal Code - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentence under S.385, Gwalior Penal Code, and the subsequent reference to S.292, Gwalior Penal Code, corresponding to S.302, Indian Penal Code. It also highlights the improper legal form of the sentence of hanging and the reliance on evidence such as footprints, recovery of daggers, and extra-judicial confessional statement. The court emphasizes the need for scrutinizing extra-judicial confessions and the requirement for specific questioning of the accused. It also delves into the significance of the recovery of stolen property and the absence of evidence of common intention to murder.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Baldeo was found murdered in his house, with stolen property recovered from the accused appellants' houses. The evidence included footprints, recovery of daggers, and an extra-judicial confessional statement. The court condemned the non-examination of the investigating officer and scrutinized the reliability of the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of footprints, recovery of daggers, and extra-judicial confessional statement to be unreliable. It emphasized the need for specific questioning of the accused and the absence of evidence of common intention to murder. The court upheld the conviction for robbery but set aside the conviction and sentence for murder.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of evidence such as footprints, recovery of daggers, and extra-judicial confessional statement, the absence of specific questioning of the accused, and the requirement of evidence of common intention to murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for scrutinizing extra-judicial confessions, specific questioning of the accused, and evidence of common intention to murder. It highlighted the significance of the recovery of stolen property and the absence of evidence connecting the accused with the murder.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence for murder but upheld the conviction for robbery. The accused appellants were found guilty of robbery but not of murder.
MEHTA, J.
This is a Special Appeal under S.25, cl.2, Madhya Bharat High Court Act. The accused appellants Hemraj and Fakirchand are convicted under S.385, Gwalior Penal Code, corresponding to S.390, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and fine of Re.1 each by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain. As the learned Sessions Judge found both the accused also guilty under S.292, Gwalior Penal Code, corresponding to S.302, Indian Penal Code, but could not inflict adequate sentence, he referred the case to the High Court to pass a sentence of more than 14 years or life imprisonment or death sentence.
2. The accused appellants also preferred appeal against the order of conviction and sentence under S.385, for 10 years, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain.
3. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal of both the accused and maintained the conviction and sentence under S.385, Gwalior Penal Code. With regard to conviction under S.292, Gwalior Penal Code the accused was sentenced to be hanged
4. I may here mention that the sentence of hanging passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench is not in proper legal form. Section 302, Penal Code, and the corresponding S.292, Gwalior Penal Code, prescribes a sentence of death or rigorous imprisonment for life. The manner and method by which the sentence of death is to be carried is not mentioned in S.302, Penal Code. It appears to me surprising that the learned Judges have subsequently justified the use of word hanging.
5. Shortly stated the facts leading to this appeal are as follows. The deceased Baldeo s/o Jagannath aged 60 was residing alone at his house in Bad nager. His wife Mulibai had gone to her brother Jainarayan's house at Indore. On 14-10-1947, P. W. Kanhaiya who is a neighbour of deceased Baldeo noticed that the idol in the 'mandir', installed in the house of Baldeo was decked with jewels but the door of the 'mandir' was not properly closed. The house of Baldeo was locked. There was a mysterious silence. P.W. Kanhaiya got inquisitive and suspicious so he enquired from Murli Manohar whether Baldeo Pujari had gone out of his house Inquiry was made from one Kumbhar who used to look after the 'mandir' in the absence of Baldeo but no satisfactory clue could be found about the whereabouts of Baldeo.
Next day, that is, on 15-10-1947, Murli Manohar sent a wire to Jainarayan, brother-in-law of deceased Baldeo at Indore. Mulibai w/o Baldeo and Jai narayan returned to Badnagar from Indore and saw that the doors of Baldeo's house were locked from outside. The locks were forced open by 'luhar' Motilal. On entering inside the house Mulibai, Jainarayan and others found the dead body of Baldeo lying in a room where fuel was stored. They found injuries on the corpse and the safe was rifled. There was an incised wound in front of the neck 1" x 1/2". Trachea was cut. There was injury below the nipple left side. There was punctured wound 2" x 2" x 1/3" puncturing the spleen.
6. On 15-10-1947 at 10 p.m. Jainarayan lodged a report at the Police Station, Badnagar. Mulibai gave a list Ex. P/12 of stolen ornaments on 16-10-1947. Another list Ex. P/12 of ornaments, pledged with Baldeo, was also given. On 19-10-1947, at about 8-30 a.m. accused Hemraj called P.W.4 Ramgopal to his house and the prosecution alleged that he told him that himself and accused Fakirchand had murdered Baldeo and that they had divided the properties half and half. Accused Hemraj suggested to Ramgopal to give away his share of stolen property to Sub-Inspector Dhande and save him from the consequences of the crime.
On hearing this sensational news from accused Hemarj, Ramgopal became intensly nervous and spoiled his clothes. He went away to change his clothes and in the meantime informed P.W.8 Rameshwar of everything that had transpired between him and accused Hemraj. P.W.8 Rameshwar went to the Police Station Badnagar and lodged the first information report on 19-10-1947.
7. The accused H
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.