IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2205 of 1997
Decided On : 22-09-2022
Cr.P.C. - Appeal - 374(2) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found guilty and convicted for assaulting the deceased and other injured parties. The main contention was whether the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC was justified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased's death was directly caused by the injuries sustained in the incident. The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for assaulting the other injured parties.
Issues: The main issue was the justification of the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and the appropriate sentencing for the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the assault and the cause of death of the deceased. The court also considered the gravity of the crime and the nature of the offence in determining the appropriate sentencing.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC were set aside, and the appellants were found guilty of assaulting the deceased under Section 324 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000 each. The conviction and sentence for assaulting the other injured parties were affirmed.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 15/10/1997 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.173/1990, whereby learned Sessions Judge found appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under :
| Appellants | Sections | Sentence | Fine | Default stipulation |
| Appellant no.1 Dinesh | 304 Part-II read with 34 of the IPC | Five years R.I. | Rs.1000/ - | S.I. for six months. |
| 324 read with 34 of the IPC | Two years R.I. | Rs.500/- | S.I. for three months. | |
| 323 r/w 34 of the IPC | One year R.I. | Rs.200/- | S.I. for one month. | |
| Appellant no.2 Ram Naresh | 304 Part-II read with 34 of the IPC | Five years R.I. | Rs.1000/ - | S.I. for six months. |
| 324 read with 34 of the IPC | Two years R.I. | Rs.500/- | S.I. for three months. | |
| 323 r/w 34 of the IPC | One year R.I. | Rs.200/- | S.I. for one month. | |
| Co-accused Shiv Prasad | 304 Part-II read with 34 of the IPC | Five years R.I. | Rs.1000/ - | S.I. for six months. |
| 324 read with 34 of the IPC | Two years R.I. | Rs.500/- | S.I. for three months. | |
| 323 r/w 34 of the IPC | One year R.I. | Rs.200/- | S.I. for one month. |
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25/10/1988 at around 6:30 a.m., Ram Gopal left his house to go to Pahi, on the way, when he reached near Shiv Prasad's house, located at village Gurheta, co-accused Shiv Prasad, his son Dinesh Kumar, appellant no.1 and Ram Naresh, appellant no.2 came out from their house armed with sticks, spear and knife, they stopped Ram Gopal and assaulted him with the stick, spear and knife and also abused him. On hearing shouting, Ram Gopal's son Sampat Kumar (PW-7), Daya Shankar (PW-8) and wife Yashoda (PW-9) came there to rescue him, then they also assaulted them. At this time, two other unknown persons (later their names came to be learnt as Hardayal and Sualal @ Rajmani) also came on the spot from the side of Shiv Prasad's house, they also assaulted them due to which Ram Gopal, Daya Shankar, Sampat Kumar and Yashoda sustained injuries. On hearing the shouting, Vishale kurmi, Ram Jivan (PW-10) and other people came to the spot, who saw the incident and rescued Ram Gopal and other injured. Ram Gopal lodged the report (Ex.P-11) of the incident at PS Mauganj on the same day, which was written by Yash Narayan Sharma (PW14) and registered Crime no.191/1988 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 324, 323 and 34 of the IPC and investigated the matter. Police sent Ram Gopal, Dayashankar, Sampat Kumar and Yashoda for medical examination, where Dr. Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi (PW1) examined them and gave MLC reports (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4) respectively. Further investigation was conducted by Brij Narayan Dwivedi (PW-16), he recorded the case diary statements of prosecution witnesses Sampat Kumar (PW-7), Daya Shankar (PW-8), Yashoda (PW-9), Laxman Prasad (PW3), Jhadu (PW4) Ramjivan (PW-10), Ramvishal (PW-12) and Maksudan (PW-13) also prepared spot map (Ex.P-9). On 2/11/1988 Ram Gopal died due to the injuries sustained by him in the incident during treatment in the hospital. Maksudan (PW-13) lodged the report (Ex.P-12) in this regard at PS Mauganj. On that report, Brij Narayan Dwivedi (PW- 16) went to the hospital and prepared an inquest memo (Ex.P-10) of the dead body of deceased Ram Gopal. He also registered inquest no.39/1988 (Ex.P-17) at P.S. Mauganj and sent the dead body of Ram Gopal for postmortem along with the application (Ex.P-5A), where Dr. Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi (PW-1) conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Ram Gopal and gave postmortem report (Ex.P-5). Police also arrested the appellants and co-accused and prepared arrest memos (Ex.P-19 to Ex.P- 22) and also seized one knife from the possession of appellant no.1 Dinesh, one stick from the possession of co-accused Shiv Prasad and prepared seizure memos (Ex.P-15 and P-16) and after investigation filed the charge she
The prosecution must establish a direct nexus between the assault and the cause of death to justify a conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
The court established that the nature of injuries and intent are crucial in determining the appropriate charge under IPC, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence linking actions to the cause of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of common intention in determining the appropriate conviction for the accused, considering the lack of evidence es....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and limitation of the right of private defence, leading to the toning down of the charge and acquittal of the accused from certain ....
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 judgment established the importance of clear evidence linking the accused's actions to the alleged offence and highlighted the legal principles related to sudden fights and heat of passion in det....
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
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.