IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, JJ.
Bhaggo Bai – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2014
Decided On : 13-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the criminal case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the incident leading to prosecution. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding the appellant's involvement. (Para 10 , 26) |
| 4. court's evaluation of witness credibility. (Para 13 , 29 , 56) |
| 5. legal standards for unlawful assembly and culpability. (Para 60 , 66 , 70) |
| 6. final judgment and sentencing. (Para 72 , 74) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 10/10/2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in ST No.87/2010, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences:-
| Conviction U/s | Sentence | Fine | Default (in lieu of fine) |
| 148 of IPC | 1 year's RI | Rs.1,000/- | 3 months RI |
| 302/149 of IPC (on two counts) | LI | Rs.5,000/- | 2 years RI |
| 324/149 of IPC | 1 year's RI | Rs.1,000/- | 3 months RI |
2. It is not out of place to mention here that total ten persons were made accused, out of which, six persons namely, Chhaviram, Sodam alias Kunjbihari, Chunge alias Ramgopal, Hemant, Thakurdas and Janki alias Ramdas were tried in ST No.87/2010 and have been convicted by judgment and sentence dated 7/9/2011 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Dabra, District Gwalior. Two accused persons were juvenile and accordingly, they were tried by Juvenile Justice Board. The present appellant and co-accused Tillu were absconding. The appellant was arrested at a later stage and a separate trial was conducted and by the impugned judgment and sentence, She has been convicted for the above-mentioned offences. Six co-accused persons have also filed Criminal Appeal No.873/2011 and Criminal Appeal No.977/2011 and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of A.T. Mydeen Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner, Customs Department, decided on 31/10/2021 passed in Cr.A.No.1306 of 2021, the evidence led in the case of present appellant cannot be read for six co-accused persons and vice versa. However, the appeals filed by the appellant as well as co-accused persons have been heard simultaneously, but they are being decided by separate judgments.
3. The prosecution story in short is that on 15-9-2009 at 08:10 A.M., the complainant Narayan lodged an FIR on the allegations that on 14-9- 2009, a dispute had taken place between him and Hemant Kushwaha on the issue of fetching water from the water tanker sent by Municipal Council. Today, at about 7:45 A.M., his father was sitting on a platform constructed in front of his house. On the issue of water, Thakurdas, with sword, Hemant with sword, Sodam with sword and brother-in-law of Hemant with sword, Chhaviram with baka(Chopper), Janaki with iron rod, Chunge with Lathi and Bhaggo bai empty handed came on the spot and started abusing him filthily. When his father objected to it, then Hemant and Thakurdas, with an intention to kill his father assaulted by sword as a result his father sustained injuries on his head and forehead, as well as on teeth and blood started oozing out. When his brother Amar Singh tried to intervene, then Sodam Singh assaulted him by sword whereas Janaki assaulted him by iron rod. At that time, Bhaggo bai, wife of Chhaviram exhorted that all should be killed so that the daily dispute may come to an end. When his wife Asha and the complainant Narayan tried to intervene in the matter, the Appellant Chhaviram assaulted his wife by Baka, as a result she sustained injury on her right forearm.
Chunge, and brother-in-law of Hemant also caused injuries to his father and brother. After hearing his alarm, his brother Premnarayan, Ashok and brother-in-law Ashok also came on the spot. The assailants ran away.
Thereafter, he took his brother and father to the hospital in an injured condition, where his father was declared dead by the Doctors. The
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 unlawful assembly's common object did not support the charge of murder; liability under Section 149 requires proof of foresight for the act committed, demonstrated through individual roles during....
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.