SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, JJ.
Lokman v. State of M. P.
Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 1998 (Jabalpur): against the judgment and sentence dated 19.5.1998 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 604/95;
Decided on 8.4.2022

Advocates:
Asadulla Usmani for appellant;
Yogendra Das Yadav, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:

(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 307 -- single knife blow on back -- injury caused on vital part of body because, though it was caused on back, it reached to chest -- doctor specifically stated that nature of injury was grievous and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature -- conviction u/s. 307 does not suffer from any legal infirmity -- considering that only single injury was caused and appellant did not further attempt to hurt, sentence of 5 years RI reduced to 4 years imprisonment. [Paras 17, 29 & 31

(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 307, 319 and 320 -- term "hurt" used in S. 307, not "grievous hurt" -- causing hurt with intention or knowledge that it may cause death would attract S. 307 -- there is no requirement for injury to be on vital part of body -- merely causing hurt is sufficient to attract S. 307. (2015) 11 SCC 366 and 2019 (2) JLJ 138 (SC) followed. [Para 18

(3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 307 -- intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused -- is question of fact -- would depend on facts of case -- injury was simple or minor -- will not by itself rule out application of S. 307 -- determinative question is intention or knowledge, not nature of injuries. 2021 SCC Online SC 1046 followed. [Para 21

(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 32 and 157 -- dying declaration -- person making dying declaration survives -- his statement cannot be admitted u/s. 32 -- may be relied on u/s. 157 to corroborate testimony of complainant. 1983 CrLJ 218 SC followed. [Para 23

(5) Witness -- injured witness -- testimony of injured witness stands on higher pedestal than other witnesses -- is considered reliable as it comes with built-in guarantee of his presence at scene of occurrence -- testimony of injured witness has its own relevancy and is accorded special status in law -- cannot be brushed aside. 2015 (11) SCC 12 and 2012 (1) MPLJ (Cr.) SC 19 followed.

[Paras 27 & 28

¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 307 && pkdw ls ihB ij ,dy okj && {kfr nsg ds ekfeZd vax ij dkfjr D;ksafd Hkys gh og ihB ij dkfjr dh xbZ] og o{k rd igq¡ph && fpfdRld us fofufnZ"V dFku fd;k fd {kfr dh izÑfr xaHkhj Fkh rFkk og izÑfr ds lkekU; vuqØe esa e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, i;kZIr Fkh && /kkjk 307 ds v/khu nks"kflf) fdlh fof/kd 'kSfFkY; ls xzLr ugha && bl ij fopkj djrs gq, fd dsoy ,d {kfr dkfjr dh xbZ Fkh rFkk vihykFkhZ us migfr igq¡pkus dk vkSj iz;Ru ugha fd;k] 5 o"kZ ds dfBu dkjkokl dk naMkns'k de dj 4 o"kZ ds dkjkokl dk fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 17] 29 ,oa 31
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 307] 319 rFkk 320 && /kkjk 307 ßmigfrÞ dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS] ß?kksj migfrÞ dk ugha && bl vk'k; ;k Kku ds lkFk migfr dkfjr djus ls fd mlls e`R;q gks ldrh gS] /kkjk 307 vkÑ"V gksxh && {kfr nsg ds ekfeZd vax ij gksus dh dksbZ vis{kk ugha && /kkjk 307 vkÑ"V djus ds fy, dsoy mifgr dkfjr djuk i;kZIr gSA ¼2015½11 ,l lh lh 366 rFkk 2019 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 138 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18
¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 307 && o/k djus dk vk'k; vFkok Kku fd e`R;q gks tk,xh && rF; dk iz'u gS && izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij fuHkZj djsxk && {kfr lknk ;k xkS.k Fkh && ek= bl dkj.k /kkjk 307 dk ykxw gksuk oftZr ugha gksxk
&& fu.kkZ;d iz'u vk'k; vFkok Kku dk gS] {kfr;ksa dh izÑfr dk ughaA 2021 ,l lh lh vkWuykbu ,l lh 1046 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;] 1872 && /kkjk 32 rFkk 157 && e`R;qdkfydk dFku djus okyk O;fDr thfor jgrk gS && mldk dFku /kkjk 32 ds v/khu xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && f'kdk;rdrkZ dk ifjlk{; laiq"V djus ds fy, /kkjk 157 ds v/khu voyac fy;k tk ldrk gSA 1983 lhvkj ,y ts 218 ,l lh vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23
¼5½ lk{kh && vkgr lk{kh && vkgr lk{kh ds ifjlk{; dk LFkku vU; lkf{k;ksa ls mPprj gksrk gS && fo'oluh; ekuk tkrk gS D;ksafd mlesa mlds ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr gksus dh izR;kHkwfr fufgr gksrh gS && vfr lk{kh ds ifjlk{; dh viuh izklafxdrk gksrh gS rFkk fof/k esa fo'ks"k gSfl;r nh xbZ gS && mis{kk ugha dh tk ldrhA 2015 ¼11½ ,l lh lh 12 rFkk 2012 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼fØ-½ ,l lh 19 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellant Lokman against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.5.1998 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 604/95 whereby appellant Lokman has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 28.4.1995 at about 9:35 a.m. Santosh Yadav (PW-4) resident of village Gram Sundarpur P.S.Panagar lodged FIR stating that he is a milkman and sells milk. Today he by his bicycle had come to sell milk in Chandan Colony Manegoan. After giving milk in Chandan Colony with a view to purchase Khalli Chunni from Munna Khalli Chunni’s shop he came to Sai Pradhan. After parking his bicycle in front of the shop of Munna, he was standing there. At around 9:05 a.m. someone from back side put a hand on his left shoulder. At this, when he looked back, he found that middle son-in-law of his uncle (phoopha) Phoolchand, gave a knife blow on the right side of his back and fled away after thrusting knife in his back. His back started to bleed. He raised alarm and sat down there. Shop Keeper Munna and one Halke who were standing there had seen accused inflicting him knife blow. Munna asked who had given the blow then he told him that it was his uncle’s son-in-law.

3. Ramkumar Patel, who was also standing there took out knife from his back and tied the wound with a towel and brought him to police station along with knife. He further stated that in the evening of 28.4.1995 Barat had come to Phoolchand Yadav’s house and there his Raipurawala son-in-law was creating ruckus after consuming liquor. At this, he and others had scolded him. Over that issue, he gave a knife blow on his back with an intention to kill him. An FIR was registered at Crime No.243/95 of P.S. Ranjhi for commission of offence under section 307 IPC by ASI R.S. Singh (PW-1) on the basis of narration given by Santosh (PW-4). R.S. Singh (PW-1) sent him to Victoria Hospital for medical examination. He seized blood stained knife from witness Ramkumar and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/5. He prepared spot map Ex.P/4. He seized blood stained clothes of injured Santosh and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/6. In Victoria Hospital Dr. M.M. Agrawal (PW-2) examined injured Santosh and gave MLC report Ex.P/3. He referred him to Medical College for further treatment. In Medical College, Dr. A.K. Tondar (PW-5) examined Santosh and found an incised wound over right side of his chest and found this injury dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. He gave his report Ex.P/10. Next day i.e. on 29.4.1995 Purushottam Singh (PW-6) Naib Tehsildar recorded dying declaration Ex.P/10 of Santosh. After investigation, police Ranjhi filed a charge sheet against the present appellant Lokman before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who in its turn, committed the case to the Court of Session.

4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framed charges against the accused for commission of offence under section 307 of IPC. Accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven prosecution witnesses namely R.S. Singh (PW-1), Dr. M.M.Agrawal (PW-2), Mahendra Singh Sahu (PW-3), Santosh (PW-4), Dr. A.K. Tondar (PW-5), Purushottam Kumar (PW-6) and M.M. Khan (PW-7) whereas accused person has not examined any witness in support of his case.

6 . Learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of prosecution witness and hearing the parties found the appellant/accused Lokman guilty for commission of offence under section 307 of IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant/accused, this appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has assailed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top