Chandrabhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 914

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Chandrabhan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2012 And Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2012
Decided On : 13-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Shri S.S. Kushwah - Advocate, Shri R. K.S. Kushwah - Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri C. P. Singh-Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 302, 149, 299, and 300 - Criminal Appeals against convictions for murder arising from a dispute leading to gunfire - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony despite some hearsay evidence; necessity for proving common object of assembly emphasized. (Paras 2, 52)

(B) Criminal law - The court reaffirmed that mere presence in an unlawful assembly, without proof of common object, does not render all members liable for the offense; key to establish unlawful assembly with a common object under Section 149. (Paras 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of two individuals during a public gathering following a fight at a temple festival. Eyewitnesses testified about the roles of the accused in the attack. (Paras 2-5)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found sufficient evidence to uphold the convictions, stating minor discrepancies in testimony do not diminish the credibility of the prosecution’s case. (Paras 48-49)

Issues: The primary issues involved assessing the evidence from eyewitnesses versus hearsay witnesses and establishing whether the assembly was unlawful with a common object. (Paras 28, 48)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that to secure a conviction under Section 149, the prosecution must prove the common object of the assembly and that members intended the crime committed. The evidence, despite some inconsistencies, was deemed reliable for convicting the appellants. (Paras 52-53)

Result: Appeals dismissed, affirming the convictions and sentences handed down by the trial court.

Table of Content
1. conviction details and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. accused's denial and defense presented. (Para 5)
3. arguments by appellants and state. (Para 6 , 7)
4. interpretation of ipc sections relevant to culpable homicide. (Para 8 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 28)
5. determination of murder vs. culpable homicide. (Para 10 , 11 , 19 , 23 , 24)
6. clarification of mens rea in homicide cases. (Para 13 , 16)
7. common object in unlawful assembly. (Para 30 , 32)
8. final verdict and dismissal of appeals. (Para 36 , 51)

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - This common judgment shall also govern disposal of Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2012 filed by appellants Ravi & Santosh and Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2012 filed by appellants Ashish and Ramprakash. Since the facts and circumstances of all the criminal appeals are the same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are heard simultaneously.

2. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16-12-2021 passed by Special and Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (MP) in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2007, the present Criminal Appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC have been preferred by the appellants by which, they have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

Names of accused	Conviction	Sentence
Chandrabhan	Section 148 of IPC Section 302 /149 of IPC	3 years RI LI with fine of Rs.2,000/-
Ravi	Section 148 of IPC Section 302 of IPC	3 years RI LI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-
Santosh	Section 148 of IPC Section 302 /149 of IPC	3 years RI LI with fine of Rs. 2,000/-
Ashish	Section 148 of IPC Section 302 of IPC	3 years RI LI with fine of Rs.2,000/-
Ramprakash	Section 148 of IPC Section 302 /149 of IPC	3 years RI LI with fine of Rs.2,000/-

On deposit of fine amount, as per provisions of Section 357 of CrPC, it was directed that Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to legal heirs of deceased Mahesh Chaurasiya and Munnalal Chaurasiya. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. Prosecution case, in brief is that on 09-04-2006 at around 07:30 pm Deepak Chaurasiya (PW4) lodged a Dehati Nalishi at Police Station Civil Line, Datia alleging therein that on Saturday, a Bhandara was organized at the Temple of Bumb Mahadev and when Bhandara was going on, one old lady, namely, Ramrati who was residing behind the Mandi, was beaten by accused Ghanshyam, therefore, accused Ghanshyam was also beaten by the complainant party and on account of said incident, in the morning of 09-04-2006, accused Rakesh, Ravi, Ashish, Santosh, Chandrabhan Yadav, Govind Singh, came there and asked the complainant Deepak Chaurasiya as to why Ghanshyam was beaten and at that time, they assaulted him and at that juncture, uncle of complainant Mahesh Chaurasiya intervened the matter. Thereafter, all accused persons went from the place of occurrence by giving a threat to complainant Deepak Chaurasiya to kill him. Thereafter, in the afternoon of 09-04-2006 accused Ashish, Ghanshyam and Ramprakash came to the house of old lady Ramrati and beaten her and this fact was narrated by Ramrati to Mahesh Chaurasiya, uncle of the complainant. Again, accused Ashish and Ramprakash came to handcart shop of Mahesh Chaurasiya and some hot talks took place there and thereafter, went from there by giving a threat to kill him. On the same day, at around 07:30 pm, complainant Deepak Chaurasiya, his uncle Mahesh Chaurasiya and brother Arjun were standing on the said shop, all accused persons come there on Suzuki motorcycle. Accused Ravi, Ashish and Rakesh were armed with katta and thereafter, surrounded the uncle of complainant Mahesh Chaurasiya and on the exhortation of accused Ramprakash, accused Rakesh caused a gunshot fire from his Katta on the head of Mahesh Chaurasiya and at the same time, when other uncle of complainant Munnalal Chaurasiya who was doing Chowkidar at the s