The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the intention to commit murder and the intention to commit another offense, leading to the application of different sections of the IPC for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

(Shailendra Shukla, J.) :

1. This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C has been preferred against the order and judgment dated 22.11.2011, pronounced in S.T.No.191 of 2011 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Kukshi, District Dhar, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

2. The prosecution story, succinctly speaking is that on 26.7.2009, the complainant Tulsiram Vishwakarma (PW4) along with Pappu @ Parmanand (since deceased) were going from Nagalwadi to Loni on a motorcycle driven by Pappu @ Parmanand. As they arrived at a crossing near Babulsa, they came across a wire which has been stretched across the road. This wire had been laid in order to commit loot of the passengers whose movement would get impeded as they would collide with the wire. This wire had a fatal impact upon Pappu @ Parmanand who was driving the motorcycle as it pierced his throat. Pappu @ Parmanand died on the spot due to injuries caused to him on throat. The complainant Tulsiram (PW4) was taken to near by jungle by miscreants, he was assaulted and was tied down after removing his clothes. Report was lodged on the same night at police station Kukshi under the provisions of Section 394 and 302 of IPC. During investigation the Penal provision was enhanced to Section 397 of IPC and after residual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The trial Court after recording the evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.

3. In the appeal which has been preferred, it has been stated that there is mutual contradiction in the statements in respect of the witnesses of seizure of bracelet of the deceased Pappu, that other co-accused persons were not arrested and that the appellant has been proceeded against only on flimsy grounds. In his oral submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the evidence available on record be relied upon, the trial Court would not have convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC because there was no intention to cause murder and the intention was barely to commit the offence of loot and at the most conviction could have been under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

4. The question before us is whether conviction of the appellant by the trial Court mainly under Section 302 of IPC suffers from erroneous appreciation of the evidence ?.

5. Throughout his oral submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has limited his submissions to the effect of that at the most offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC is attracted. In view of the restricted submissions, the appeal is being disposed of accordingly.

6. Learned counsel has invited Court's attention to Dehatinalishi (Ex. P/6) exhibited by complainant Tulsiram (PW4) in which it has been mentioned that the wire was stretched across the road for committing loot. Learned counsel submits that even the complainant has stated that the intention of the accused persons was mainly to commit the loot and not to commit the murder.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has submitted that the accused who had stretched out such wire across the road was deemed to have knowledge about consequence of his act and therefore, there is no error in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Shajahan vs. State, 2018 Vol. I MPWN 112 (S.C.) in which the High Court's judgment pronounced in appeal enhancing the sentence of imprisonment from 10 years to life imprisonment under Section 396 of IPC was reduced to 10 years as held earlier held by the trial Court. The reason which was assigned fo