Kamal Singh Rawat vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia and Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Kamal Singh Rawat v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeals No. 715 of 2013, 303 of 2010 and 363 of 2010 (Gwalior): against the judgments dated 7.4.2010 and 21.6.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No. 71/2007; Decided on 14.12.2021

Advocates:
S.S. Kushwah and S.K.S. Jadon for appellants; C.P. Singh for respondents/State.

Headnote:
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 299 and 300 Thirdly -- words "intention of causing death" -- occur in clause Firstly, not in clause Thirdly -- offence would fall within clause Thirdly even though offender did not intend to cause death, so long as death ensues from intentional bodily injury and injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature -- intention of causing death wholly irrelevant for deciding whether case falls in clause Thirdly -- culpable homicide is causing of death by doing: (i) act with intention of causing death; (ii) act with intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death; or (iii) act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death -- without one of these elements, though act may be by its nature criminal and may occasion death, will not amount to culpable homicide -- culpable homicide is genus and murder is species -- all murders are culpable homicide, but not vice versa - "intent" and "knowledge" postulate existence of positive mental attitude of different degrees -- first and second clauses of S. 300 refer to intention apart from knowledge -- third clause refers to knowledge alone, and not intention -- fact that death of human being is caused is not enough unless one of the mental states mentioned in S. 300 is present -- nature of offence does not only depend upon location of injury, intention is to be gathered from all facts and circumstances -- intention is question of fact which is to be gathered from act of party. AIR 1958 SC 465, Appeals (Cri.) No. 1078-1079 of 2005, 1966 Cri. L.J. 171, (2000) 1 SCC 319, (2003) 9 SCC 322, (2006) 11 SCC 444, (2010) 9 SCC 799, (2019) 5 SCC 639 and (2008) 15 SCC 725 discussed. [Paras 11, 19 to 21]
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 34 -- recognizes principle of vicarious liability -- once criminal act and common intention are proved, then, by fiction of law, criminal liability of having done that act individually would arise -- emphasis is on word "done" -- some individual participation in commission of criminal act required - every individual member must be a participant in joint act -- separate act by all accused persons not envisaged -- concept of presence of accused at scene not necessary requirement -- co-accused can remain a little away and supply weapons -- can oversee actions and give instructions from distance -- act need not be overt -- even illegal omission to do certain act in certain situation can amount to such act -- if no such act is done, even if person has common intention with others for accomplishment of crime, S. 34 cannot be invoked - S. 34 deals with doing of separate acts, similar or diverse, by several persons -- if all are done in furtherance of common intention, each person is liable as if he had done them himself -- mainly two elements necessary -- one, person must be present on scene of occurrence -- two, there must be prior concert or pre-arranged plan -- unless these two conditions are fulfilled, person cannot be held guilty by operation of S. 34. 2012 (9) SCALE 345, AIR 2012 SC 3539, AIR 2011 SC 3753, AIR 1999 SC 1083, 1956 Cri. L.J. 897, AIR 1990 SC 2252, 1979 Cri. L.J. 1078 (SC), 1994 Cri. L.J. 2195 (SC) and 1993 Cri. L.J. 43 (SC) followed. [Paras 34, 35 to 40]
(3) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S.8 -- motive -- case based on direct evidence - prosecution evidence worth reliance -- cannot be discarded merely on ground of absence of motive or intention of accused. (2017) 11 SCC 195 followed. [Para 46]
(4) Witness -- interested witness -- meaning -- one interested in securing conviction out of vengeance or enmity or due to dispute -- deposes only with that intention, not to further cause of justice -- version of interested witness cannot be thrown overboard -- has to be examined carefully before accepting -- no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses -- will always depend upon facts and circumstances of case. [Para 55]
(5) Witness -- not number of witnesses, but quality of evidence is required to be taken note of while ascertaining truth and veracity of allegations. (2016) 16 SCC 418 followed. [Para 55]
¼1½ naM lafgrk 1860 & /kkjk 299 rFkk 300 rhljk & 'kCn ^^e`R;q dkfjr djus dk vk'k; & [kaM igyk esa vkrs gSa] [kaM rhljk esa ugha & tc rd e`R;q lk'k; 'kkjhfjd {kfr ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZ gks vkSj {kfr;ka ÁÑfr ds lkekU; vuqØe esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr gksa] vijk/k [kaM rhljk ds varxZr vk,xk] Hkys gh vijk/kh dk vk'k; e`R;q dkfjr djus dk ugha Fkk & e`R;q dkfjr djus dk vk'k; ;g fofuf'pr djus ds fy, iw.kZr% vlaxr fd ekeyk [kaM rhljk ds varxZr vkrk gS ;k ugha & vijk/k ekuo o/k ;g djds e`R;q dkfjr djuk gksrk gS% ¼1½ e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls fd;k x;k dk;Z( ¼2½ ,slh 'kkjhfjd {kfr dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls fd;k x;k dk;Z ftlls e`R;q gksuk laHkkO; gks vFkok ¼3½ bl Kku ds lkFk fd;k x;k dk;Z fd blls e`R;q dkfjr gksuk laHkkO; gS & buesa ls ,d rRo ds fcuk dk;Z] Hkys gh og vkijkf/kd ÁÑfr dk gks vkSj e`R;q dkfjr djs] vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k dh dksfV esa ugha vk,xk & vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k tkfr gS rFkk gR;k Átkfr gS & lHkh gR;k,a vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k gksrh gSa] ijarq bldk myV ugha gskrk & ^^vk'k; vkSj ^^Kku fHkUu&fHkUu dksfV dh lqfuf'pr ekufld vfHko`fRr ds vfLrRo dh vfHk/kkj.kk djrs gSa & /kkj.k 300 ds igys vkSj nwljs [kaM esa Kku ls fHkUu] vk'k; fufnZ"V gS & rhljs [kaM esa dsoy Kku dk funsZ'k gS] vk'k; dk ugha & tc rd /kkjk 300 esa mfYy[kr ekufld n'kkvksa esa ls ,d fo|eku ugha gks] ;g rF; i;kZIr ugha fd euq"; dh e`R;q dkfjr dh xbZ gS & vijk/k dh ÁÑfr dsoy bl ij fuHkZj ugha djrh fd {kfr dgka gS] vk'k; dk irk leLr rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls yxk;k tkuk gksrk gS & vk'k; rF; dk Á'u gS] ftldk irk i{kdkj ds ÑR; ls yxk;k tkuk gksrk gSA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 465] vihy ¼fØŒ½ Øekad 1078&1079 lu~ 2005] 1966 lhvkj ,y ts 171] 2000 ¼1½ ,l ,l lh] 319] ¼2003½ 9 ,l lh lh 322] ¼2006½ 11 ,l lh lh 444] ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 799] ¼2019½ 5 ,l lh lh 639 rFkk ¼2008½ 15 ,l lh lh 725 foosfprA ¼iSjk 11] 19 ls 21½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 34 & Áfrfuf/kd nkf;Ro ds fl)kar dks ekU;rk nh xbZ gS & vkijkf/kd dk;Z vkSj lkekU; vk'k; lkfcr gks tk,a rc fofèkd dYiuk ls] og dk;Z O;fDrxr :i ls djus dk vkijkf/kd nkf;Ro mn~Hkwr gksxk & 'kCn ^^fd, x, ij cy fn;k x;k gS & vkijkf/kd dk;Z djus esa fdlh Ádkj O;fDrxr :i ls Hkkx fy;k tkuk vko';d & ÁR;sd O;fDrxr lnL; }kjk la;qDr dk;Z esa Hkkx fy;k tkuk vko';d & lHkh vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa }kjk i`Fkd&i`Fkd dk;Z fd;k tkuk ifjdfYir ugha & LFky ij vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr dh ladYiuk vko';d vis{kk ugha & lg&vfHkqDr dqN nwj jg dj vk;q/k Ánk; dj ldrk gS & nwj ls dk;Z ij n`f"V j[k dj vuqns'k ns ldrk gS & dk;Z ÁR;{k gksuk vko';d ugha & fdlh fuf'pr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ fuf'pr dk;Z djus dk voS/k yksi Hkh ,sls dk;Z dh dksfV esa vk ldrk gS & ;fn ,slk dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k tkrk rks] Hkys gh O;fDr dk vijk/k djus ds fy, vU; O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk lkekU; vk'k; gks] /kkjk 34 dk vkJ; ugha fy;k tk ldrk & /kkjk 34 vusd O;fDr;ksa }kjk] leku ;k fofo/k] i`Fkd&i`Fkd dk;Z fd, tkus ds ckjs esa gS & ;fn lHkh dk;Z lkekU; vk'k; dks vxzlj djus ds fy, fd, tkrs gSa rks ÁR;sd O;fDr mlh Ádkj nk;h gksxk mlus mUgsa Lo;a fd;k gks & eq[;r% nks rRo vko';d & ,d] O;fDr ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr gksuk gh pkfg, & nks] iwfoZd ,d&jk ;k iwoZ&fuksftr ;kstuk gksuk vko';d & tc rd bu nks 'krksZ dh iwfrZ ugha gksrh] O;fDr dks /kkjk 34 ds ÁorZu ls nks"kh vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2012 ¼9½ Ldsy 345] , vkb vkj 2012 ,l lh 3539] , vkb vkj 2011 ,l lh 3753] , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 1083] 1956 lh vkj ,y ts 897] , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 2252] 1979 lh vkj ,y ts 1078 ¼,l lh½] 1994 lh vkj ,y ts 2195 ¼,l lh½ rFkk 1993 lhvkj ,y ts 43 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 34] 35 ls 40½
¼3½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 8 & gsrq & ekeyk ÁR;{k lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & vfHk;kstu lk{; voyacuh; & dsoy vfHk;qDr ds gsrq ;k vk'k; dh vfo|ekurk ds vk/kkj ij R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2017½ 11 ,l lh lh 195 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 46½
¼4½ lk{kh & fgrc) lk{kh & vfHkizsr & Áfr'kks/k ;k 'k=qrk ds dkj.k vFkok fookn ds dkj.k nks"kflf) lqfuf'pr djus esa :fp j[kus okyk & dsoy mlh vk'k; ls vfHklk{; nsrk gS] U;k;fgr esa ugha & fgrc) lk{kh dk o`Rrkar R;Dr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & Lohdkj djus ls iwoZ lko/kkuh iwoZ ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & dksbZ iDdk fu;e ugha fd dqVaqc ds lnL; dHkh Hkh lR;oknh lk{kh ugha gkss ldrs & ;g lnSo ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj djsxkA ¼iSjk 55½
¼5½ lk{kh & vfHkdFkuksa dh ;FkkFkZrk vkSj lR;rk vfHkfuf'pr djrs le; lkf{k;ksa dh la[;k ugha] vfirq lk{; dh xq.koRrk ij /;ku fn;k tkuk vko';dA ¼2016½ 16 ,l lh lh 418 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 55½

JUDGMENT

Shrivastava, J :- 1. This judgment shall govern disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2010 filed by appellant Madho Singh Rawat & Criminal Appeal No.363 of 2010 filed by appellant Gulab Singh against the judgment of conviction & sentence dated 7.4.2010, passed by Special Judge, Datia (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.71/2007, by which appellant Madho Singh Rawat has been convicted under section 302/34 of IPC r/w section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation, while appellant Gulab Singh Rawat has been convicted under section 302 of IPC r/w section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Similarly, vide judgment dated 21st day of June, 2013 passed by Special Judge (MPDVK Act), Data (MP) in same Special Sessions Trial No.71/2007, appellant Kamal Singh Rawat (in Criminal Appeal No.715 of 2013) has been convicted under section 302 of IPC r/w section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Since the facts and circumstances of the case in all the criminal appeals are same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, we have heard all the criminal appeals simultaneously.

2. It is undisputed fact that the place of incident i.e. Village Kurra, Police Station Badoni, District Datia has been declared a dacoity-affected area under section 3 of MPDVPK Act as per Notification No. F12-A/2000/B(1)/2/dated 24.1.2000. Co-accused Mohan Singh was killed in a police encounter. Accused Madho Singh Rawat and Gulab Singh were tried, convicted and sentenced as stated above. Accused Kamal Singh Rawat is the real brother of Madho Singh, Rawat, Mohan Singh (deceased) and Gulab Singh. Sanjay alias Baba (deceased) was the real brother of Dashrath Singh (PW1) and Ashok Singh Yadav (PW2).

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the agricultural field of one Prakash Ahirwar is situated near the agricultural field of deceased. On the date of incident i.e. on 28.6.2007 at around 2:30 pm, complainant Dashrath Singh, Ashok Singh and deceased Sanjay alias Baba were repairing the electric supply line which was discontinued. Deceased Sanjay alias Baba was fixing up a wooden pole (balli) by digging a pit. At that time, accused Kamal Singh, who was armed with 12 bore adhiya, co-accused Mohan Singh (since deceased) was having 12 bore gun, accused Gulab Singh who was having a katta and accused Madho Singh, who was having luhangi came there. Due to previous enmity, accused co-accused Mohan Singh (since deceased) fired a gunshot, which hit on the back of deceased Sanjay. Thereafter, accused Gulab Singh fired another gunshot at Sanjay causing injury on the right hand of deceased Sanjay. Accused Kamal Singh fired a gunshot, which hit on the back of deceased Sanjay. On hearing hue and cry raised by Dashrath and Ashok Singh, witnesses Panjab Singh and Radhelal, who were working near the agricultural field, reached the spot and on seeing them, all accused persons fled away towards the well of Prakash Ahirwar. Thereafter, complainant Dashrath Singh lodged an FIR at Police Station Badoni vide Ex.P1 and police recorded merg intimation report under section 174 of CrPC vide Ex.P2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P3. The dead body of deceased Sanjay alias Baba was sent for postmortem examination. All the accused persons were arrested and from their possession, deadly weapons were recovered. Bullet found inside the body of deceased Sanjay, bloodstained and simple soil, clothes of deceased and other seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. After completion of investigation, charge sheet in connection Crime No. 84/2007 for offences under sections 302, 302/34 IPC r/w section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and section 25/27 of Arms Act was filed and the case was committed to the Special Court/ Trial Court.

4. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tr