Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
SUJOY PAUL, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA, JJ.
Ratan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2010
Decided On : 22-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Santosh Kumar Meena, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mamta Shandilya, Learned Counsel.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the appellant under Section 302/149 IPC due to his involvement in the assault resulting in the death of the deceased.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Arms Act, 1959
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence pronounced by the Sessions Judge. The prosecution's story involved an assault resulting in the death of the deceased, Kalu. The appellant was convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the death of the deceased occurred due to injuries to the brain and its complications, and the appellant was involved in the assault. The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but acquitted him from the charge under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Issues: The issues involved whether the appellant deserved acquittal or a conviction under Section 304 (Part I or II) of IPC, and whether the incident was a result of sudden and free fight or premeditated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's involvement in the assault and the nature of injuries led to the conclusion that he was liable under Section 302/149 IPC. The court also found that the attack was premeditated, and the defence under Section 300(4) of IPC was not available to the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959, and dismissing the appeal in respect of conviction under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sentences for both offences were upheld, to run concurrently.

JUDGMENT :

Shailendra Shukla, J.

1. The appellant has filed the appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dated 06.04.2010 of conviction and sentence pronounced by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Session Trial No. 227/2009, wherein the appellant has been convicted as under:-

Conviction		Sentence
Section & Act	Imprisonment	Fine Amount	Imprisonment in lieu of fine
148 IPC	One year RI
302/149 IPC	Life Imprisonment	Rs.200/-	15 days RI
25(1)(B) Arms Act.	One year RI	Rs.200/-	15 days RI

2. Precisely speaking, the prosecution story in short was that on 16.04.2009, FIR was lodged by complainant Manjubai in Police-Station Kalidevi, Jhabua at about 10:25 pm to the effect that she along with her son Kalu (deceased) and her daughter-in-law Geetabai had gone to the house of co-accused Ramchand in the evening seeking return of loan amount of Rs. 10,000/- given to him by Kalu. However, Ramchand hurled filthy abuses at them and thereafter called out other co-accused persons. Subsequently, co-accused Mehtab, armed with sword, appellant Ratan armed with Falia, co-accused-Bheru and Ramdev chased deceased Kalu surrounded him near his house situated in village Bheemkund. They assaulted Kalu with weapons. On hearing the cries of complainant, some neighbours came over and the accused fled from the spot.

3. After lodging of FIR, investigation ensued. Offence registered under Section 307 IPC along with other allied Sections of IPC was enhanced to Section 302 IPC as a result of death of Kalu. Chargesheet was filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 307 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act, 1959.

4. Barring the present appellant-Ratan, all other co-accused persons had absconded and permanent warrant was issued against them and trial proceeded against the present appellant only.

5. Charges under Sections 294, 148, 302 and 302/149 (in alternative) IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act, 1959 were framed against the present appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. Prosecution has examined twelve witnesses in all, whereas no defence evidence has been led.

6. In the appeal preferred before this Court, the grounds which have been mentioned in print and in oral submissions are that the death of Kalu (deceased) had occurred due to injuries on skull, whereas none of the witnesses have stated that the appellant Ratan had caused such injuries, that no FSL report has been received showing presence of blood stains in Falia seized from him, that the incident had occurred on 16.04.2009 and the injured Kalu died on 05.05.2009, but no medical documents regarding the status of his injury have been obtained from the hospital at Kalidevi, Jhabua, that the main accused Ramchand has since been acquitted and the appellant Ratan deserves to be acquitted on these grounds.

7. Alternatively, it has been submitted that in case the evidence is found to be creditworthy, at the most offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC is made out.

8. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and State were heard. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited few judgments of Apex Court in support of his submissions.

9. Considered.

10. The question which arises for consideration before us is whether in view of the submissions, the appellant deserved to be acquitted or in the alternative he could only be convicted under Section 304 (Part I or II) of IPC.

11. It would first be appropriate to consider the nature of injuries and the cause of death of the deceased-Kalu.

12. Dr. Kishore Pramod Desai (PW/10) states that on 05.05.2009, he along with his fellow medical specialist had conducted the post-mortem of Kalu at District Hospital, Baroda and had found ten injuries on his body, which were as follows:

(i) An open would below left ear 5x4x3cm from which pus was oozing out.