2021 Supreme(MP) 733

High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G.S.Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
GUDDA @ LAL SAHAB s/o SUKHUA JATAV & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal No. 202 of 2012
Decided On : 24-11-2021

Headnote:

The instant appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 8-2-2012 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, District Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 63/2011, whereby appellants were convicted under sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC, section 324 read with section 34 of IPC and section 323 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 4000/- each for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one year each, and for the offence under section 324/34 of IPC, to undergo 6 months RI each with fine of Rs. 700/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for one month each, and under section 323/34 of IPC, to undergo RI for three months each with fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Fact of the Case:

Complainant Rambali Jatav lodged FIR alleging that on 26-1-2011 at around 6.00 p.m., he along with Ramveer (deceased) was coming back from their fields to their house and complainant’s Bhabhi Rambai was coming after attending the call of nature, when they reached in front of the house of Kutaria, the accused persons Kaptan, Kutaria, Gudda and Sangram, who were armed with luhangi, axe, lathi and farsa reached there, on that he asked why they had brought their grass, however, all of them attacked him with luhangi, axe, lathi and farsa. When Ramveer (deceased) and Rambai tried to save him, all the accused persons attacked upon them with luhangi, axe and farsa and caused serious injuries to them, as a result of which deceased Ramveer sustained injuries on his head, face and forehead, whereas Rambai also suffered injuries on her right hand with lathi. Thereafter, his father Bhola as well as Devendra and Parbati came to rescue them from the accused persons. The FIR was registered for commission of offence under sections 307, 324 and 323 of IPC. During the treatment, Ramveer succumbed to his injuries, on that, the offence under section 302 of IPC was enhanced.

Finding of the Court:

The prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond shadow of doubt that the accused/appellants had committed the alleged offences. The accused/appellants acted in furtherance of common intention and intentionally committed murder of Ramveer and also voluntarily caused simple injuries to Rambali and Rambai, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the one and only inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond shadow of doubt that the accused/appellants had committed the alleged offences.

Issues: Whether deceased Ramveer was died in the incident? Whether, the death of deceased Ramveer was homicidal in nature? Whether, the death of deceased Ramveer was culpable homicide amounting to murder ? Whether, the accused appellants caused injuries to deceased Ramveer, Rambali and Rambai with the intention to cause their death ? Whether, the aforesaid acts were done in furtherance of common intention ? Whether accused persons caused simple injuries to Bholaram?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various precedents to establish the principles of culpable homicide, common intention, and the right of private defense. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants had committed the alleged offenses. The court found that the accused/appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and had intentionally committed the murder of Ramveer. The court also found that the accused/appellants had voluntarily caused simple injuries to Rambali and Rambai. The court rejected the defense of the accused/appellants that they had acted in the exercise of the right of private defense. The court held that the accused/appellants had not shown that there were circumstances giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt would otherwise be likely to be caused to them.

Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellants Gudda @ Lal Sahab, Sangram Singh, Kutaria and Kaptan being Cri. Appeal No. 202/2012 is hereby dismissed and their conviction and sentence are affirmed. Appellant No. 1 Gudda @ Lal Sahab and appellant No. 4 Kaptan are on bail after suspending their jail sentence by this Court, therefore, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court to serve out their remaining jail sentence. As per report dated 9-8-2021 received from Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, Appellant No. 2 Sangram Singh and appellant No. 3 Kutaria are in jail but they have been released on parole. Trial Court is directed to take steps to ensure the custody of the appellants to serve out their remaining sentence. Let a copy of this judgment along with record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.