IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ.
Ramcharan v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2001 (Gwalior): against the judgment dated 8.3.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, Morena in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1999;
Decided on 5.8.2022
(1) Legal Maxim -- falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus -- has no application in India -- it is duty of Court to sift grain from chaff to find out truth. [Para 10
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302, 300 Exception 4 and 304 Pt. II -- incident occurred when deceased and another were putting fencing in their courtyard -- appellant forbade them from doing so -- on their denial, altercation ensued -- fatal blow given by appellant -- element of premeditation cannot be attributed to appellant -- death caused in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel -- act squarely falls within Exception 4 of S. 300 -- single fatal blow -- cannot be said that appellant had intention of causing death -- he certainly possessed knowledge that it was likely to cause death -- act falls within ambit of S. 304 Pt. II -- sentence -- about 23 years elapsed since incident -- appellant now 81 years of age -- suffered about two years and four months of custody -- no useful purpose would be served by sending him back to jail -- sentence reduced to period already undergone. AIR 1979 SC 577, AIR 1980 SC 660, AIR 1995 SC 2452 and AIR 1996 SC 2988 followed. [Paras 17 & 18
¼1½ fof/kd lw= && ,d ckr esa feF;k rks lc esa feF;k && Hkkjr esa ykxw ugha && lR; dk irk yxkus ds fy, Hkwls ls vukt Nku dj fudkyuk U;k;ky; dk drZO; gSA ¼iSjk 10
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302] 300 viokn 4 rFkk 304 Hkkx 2 && ?kVuk rc ?kVh tc e`rd vkSj ,d vU; vius vk¡xu esa ckM+ yxk jgs Fks && vihykFkhZ us mUgsa ,slk djus ls jksdk && euk djus ij dgk&lquh gqbZ && vihykFkhZ }kjk izk.kkard ckj & vihykFkhZ ij iwoZfparu dk rRo vkjksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrk
&& vpkud gq, >xM+s esa vkos'k dh rhozrk esa e`R;q dkfjr && ÑR; HkyhHkk¡fr /kkjk 300 ds viokn 4 esa vkrk gS && ,dek= izk.kkard ckj && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZ dk vk'k; e`R;q dkfjr djus dk Fkk && fuf'pr :i ls mls Kku Fkk fd mlls e`R;q gksus dh laHkkouk gS && ÑR; /kkjk 304 Hkkx 2 dh ifjf/k esa vkrk gS && naMkns'k && ?kVuk ls yxHkx 23 o"kZ O;rhr && vihykFkhZ] vc 81 o"kZ vk;q dk && yxHkx nks o"kZ vkSj pkj ekl dh vfHkj{kk Hkksxh && mls tsy okil Hkstus ls dksbZ mi;ksxh iz;kstu iw.kZ ugha gksxk && naMkns'k de dj igys gh Hkksxh xbZ vof/k dk fd;k x;kA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 577] , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 660] , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 2452 rFkk , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 2988 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18
JUDGMENT
1. Present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08th March, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.294 of 1999; whereby the present appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer additional R.I. for six months.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 21st July, 1999, at about 6.00 p.m., complainant Ramprasad lodged a report to the effect that on the same day at about 4 pm, Malkhan and Pappu@ Kashiram were fencing their Courtyard. At that juncture, accused Ramcharan (appellant) and Ramswaroop armed with Gadasis (Pharsas), Brijesh and Suresh armed with Luhangis, Jagannath, Ramgopal, Kamlesh and Kalli came with Lathis and prevented them from fencing the Courtyard. Then, with an intention to kill Ramcharan dealt a Gadasi blow on the head of Pappu @ Kashiram, while the second gadasi blow was inflicted by Ramswaroop again on his head. As Malkhan came forward to intervene, co-accused Brijesh, Suresh, Jagannath, Ramgopal, Kamlesh and Kalli threw him on the ground and with an intention to kill assaulted him with luhangis and lathis, on his back, hands and legs. Malkhan also fell down. Both the injured persons were rendered unconscious. They were rescued by complainant Ramprasad, Babu, Prithvi, Ramesh and Shripal while the miscreants fled from the spot. Thereafter the complainant and his associates brought Malkhan and Pappu in an unconscious condition for lodging report.
Upon such information given by complainant Ramprasad at Police Station Raghunathpur, District Sheopur, FIR was registered at Crime No.21/99. The injured were sent by Ashok Singh Tomar (P.W.14) for medical examination to Sabalgarh hospital. Dr.R.B.Agrawal (P.W.1) conducted the MLC of Pappu and Malkhan and as the condition was serious, they were referred to Gwalior Hospital, where during treatment on 22.7.1999 at about 2.00 pm. Pappu passed away.
During investigation, spot map (Ex.P/38) was prepared by Ashok Singh Tomar (P.W.14). He also seized planed and blood stained earth from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/9) and forwarded application (Ex.P/3) to Medical Officer Sabalgarh for recording dying declaration of Pappu @ Kashiram. As Pappu @ Kashiram had died at Gwalior Hospital, marg information, Panchnama lash and post mortem report were received by the investigating officer from Kampoo Police Station. Copy of the FIR was sent to the Magistrate with corresponding entry in the Daak Book. Appellant Ramcharan was arrested on 24.7.1999 vide arrest memo (Ex.P/10). On his discovery memo (Ex.P/11), a pharsa was recovered from the bushes on the way to Heerapur, which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/12). Other accused persons Ramswaroop, Suresh, Kalli Rawat, Kamlesh, Brijesh, Ramgopal and Jagannath were also apprehended. The articles seized from accused persons were sent for chemical analysis vide Ex.P/42.
Upon collection of incriminating material during investigation, challan was filed in the Court of JMFC, who committed the case to the Court of Session from trial.
3. On being charged with the offence punishable under section 302, IPC, the appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including eye witnesses Ramprasad/complainant (P.W.12), Malkhan (P.W.2), Prithviraj (P.W.3), Gullobai (P.W.5), and Babulal (PW6), whereas evidence of Ramesh (D.W.1) was recorded in defence.
5. On consideration of the evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove, however, other accused persons were acquitted of charges.
6. Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has made following submissions :--
(1)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the circumstances and intentio....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
Point of law : Motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced.
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.