Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G.S.Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
VINOD s/o BABURAM – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
CRA Nos. 629 and 674 of 2009
Decided On : 28-10-2021
The court's decision in this case hinged on determining whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that committed the murder and caused grievous injuries to the victims. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and applied them to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
On March 13, 2006, the deceased, Sheoprasad alias Shivprasad, was attacked by a group of accused persons armed with deadly weapons. The deceased sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and had acted in furtherance of a common object to commit murder and cause grievous injuries to the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause his death. The court also found that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and had acted in furtherance of a common object to commit murder and cause grievous injuries to the victims.
Issues: 1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature? 2. Whether the appellants were members of an unlawful assembly that committed the murder and caused grievous injuries to the victims?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various provisions of the IPC, including Sections 299, 300, 302, and 149, to determine the nature of the offense and the culpability of the accused persons. The court held that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause his death and that the accused persons had the intention to cause such injuries. The court also found that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and had acted in furtherance of a common object to commit murder and cause grievous injuries to the victims.
Final Decision: The court convicted the appellants of murder and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. The court also dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
JUDGMENT RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, J. : – By this common judgment, CRA No. 674/2009 [Gangadeen and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh] filed by appellant- accused Gangadeen and four others shall also be decided. From the order sheet dated 20-10-2021, it appears that during the pendency of appeal, appellant No. 5 Barelal has expired and the appeal filed on behalf of appellant No. 5 Barelal has been dismissed as abated.
For the sake of convenience, the facts of CRA No. 629/2009 [Vinod vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) shall be taken into consideration, as both are arising out of the same judgment.
2. Both the Criminal Appeals preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17-8-2009 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Ambah, District Morena (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 137/2006, by which appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences : –
Sr. No. Name of appellants-accused Offence Sentence 1. Gangadeen 148 of I.P.C. R.I. for one year 2. Ramsundar 302/149 Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-; in 3. Ramnaresh I.P.C. default thereof six months RI 4. Mahaveer 5. Barelal (dead during pendency of appeal) 307/149 I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default thereof three months RI 6. Vinod 324/149 I.P.C. R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/-; in default thereof two months RI
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13-3-2006 at about 07:00 p.m., accused persons Mahaveer and Vinoda reached the house of complainant Sukhram and told the son of complainant, Sheoprasad (Shivprasad) and Kalyan to bring liquor. On that, the son of the complainant denied the same. Thereafter, accused Mahaveer and Vinod went away towards the village after abusing in filthy language. After sometime, all the accused persons returned back to the place of occurrence. Accused Barelal was having an ‘‘axe’’, Mahaveer was having a ‘‘farsa’’, Ramnaresh was having a ‘‘ballam’’, Karua was having a ‘‘farsa’’, Gangadeen and Vinoda were having ‘‘lathi’’. Deceased Shivprasad was not having any weapon in his hand or bare handed. All the accused persons started causing injuries to deceased Sheoprasad alias Shivprasad by means of aforesaid deadly weapons. When witnesses Kalyan, Jyoti, Sonpal came there for rescue of the deceased Shivprasad, all the accused persons inflicted injuries to them. Accused Barelal inflicted injury on the head of Kalyan by means of ‘‘axe’’ and accused Karua inflicted injury to Kalyan by means of ‘‘farsa’’ and accused Ramnaresh inflicted injury by means of ‘‘ballam’’. Accused Ramnaresh inflicted injury to Jyoti by means of ‘‘ballam’’ and accused Mahaveer and Karua also inflicted injuries on the head of Sonpal by means of ‘‘farsa’’.
4. It is an admitted fact that complainant party and accused persons were knowing each other prior to the incident. After the incident, the complainant party reached the Police Station Ambah by bringing the injured witnesses and deceased Sheoprasad alias Shivprasad.
5. Jagat Singh (PW10) Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police Station Ambah registered FIR (Ex.P5). Injured Kalyan, Sonpal and Jyotiram were sent for medical examination vide Ex.P.7 to Ex.P9. On 16-5-2006, accused Gangadeen, Ramnaresh, Ramsundar and Mahaveer were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P10 to Ex.P13. They were sent for medical examination vide Ex.P24 to Ex.P26 and Dr. Ramkrishna Barothiya (PW15) prepared MLC reports respectively. On 14-3-2006, ASI Badshah Singh (PW17) prepared Panchnama of dead body of deceased Sheoprasad alias Shivprasad vide Ex.P.30 and Safina Form Ex.P29 for postmortem of dead body of deceased along with application Ex.P28. Spot map was prepared and blood-stained clothes of deceased and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P1. Statement of witness Kalyan was recorded under section 161 of CrPC. Dr. MR Sharma (PW16) conducted postmortem of the deceased. On 2-4-2006, police in-charge D. S. B
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on the established common object of the unlawful assembly, supported by credible witness testimonies and medical evidence.
The court clarified that participation in an unlawful assembly does not require each member to commit an overt act, and distinguished between intention and knowledge in culpable homicide cases.
The court established that in cases of unlawful assembly, all members can be held vicariously liable for the actions taken in furtherance of a common object, and that the prosecution's failure to exp....
The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to support the convictions, and that the appellants had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their actions. ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
