IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, Satyendra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Parmal Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 2014
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Section 374(2) - Criminal Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) - Sections 302, 307, 25(1)(A), 27 of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charges under Sections 302, 307, 25(1)(A), and 27 of the IPC and Arms Act, focusing on the evidence related to the firearm injuries, witness testimonies, and the appellant's defense. The court analyzed the intent behind the firearm injuries and the credibility of witness statements, leading to the affirmation of the appellant's conviction for murder and attempt to commit murder, while setting aside the conviction for attempt to commit murder of other individuals.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 302, 307, 25(1)(A), and 27 of the IPC and Arms Act for causing firearm injuries resulting in the death of a person and injuries to another. The appellant appealed against the judgment, challenging the credibility of witness statements and the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the appellant's actions and intent during the incident. The court affirmed the appellant's conviction for murder and attempt to commit murder of one individual, while setting aside the conviction for attempt to commit murder of other individuals due to lack of conclusive evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness statements, the appellant's intent during the incident, and the evidence related to the firearm injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the consistency of witness statements, the nature of firearm injuries, and the appellant's defense to determine the intent behind the injuries. The court affirmed the conviction based on the established intent to commit murder in one case, while setting aside the conviction in other cases due to insufficient evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction for attempt to commit murder of certain individuals while affirming the conviction for murder and attempt to commit murder of others. The appellant's remaining jail sentence was upheld.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (for brevity 'Cr.P.C.') being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/5/2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Guna to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, District Guna (Madhya Pradesh) in Sessions Case No.183/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 (3 counts) of Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and under Section 25 (1) (A) and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under:-
Conviction | Sentence | |||
Section | Act | Imprisonment | Fine | Imprisonment in lieu of fine |
302 | IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5000/- | RI for 2 years |
307 (3 counts) | IPC | RI for 10 years (3 counts) | Rs.2000/-(3 counts) | RI for 1 year (3 counts) |
25(1)(A) | Arms Act | RI for 3 years | Rs.1000/- | RI for 6 months |
27 | Arms Act | RI for 3 years | Rs.1000/- | RI for 6 months |
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
(i) On 22/1/2012 at about 20:20 hours, complainant- Gopal Krishna Sharma made an oral complaint to the effect that at about 19:30 hours, when he alongwith his nephew Anil Sharma and Shailendra Sharma was coming on his foot from Old Sabji Mandi and reached in front of Rajshri Hotel, District- Guna, a quarrel was already going on there between Ravi Raghuvanshi, Rinku Raghuvanshi & Shailendra Raghuvanshi and appellant Parmal Raghuvanshi, co-accused Santosh Raghuvanshi & Sarnam Raghuvanshi. Alongwith the appellant Parmal, co-accused Santosh and Sarnam, two more persons were also there, and on confrontation, he would identify them. Appellant Parmal was hurling filthy abuses and fired twice from his pistol, out of which one bullet hit on the right thigh of Ravi Raghuvanshi. On seeing the complainant and his nephew coming there, appellant Parmal and co-accused Santosh by hurling filthy abuses told the complainant that he is exceeding/doing over Councillorship (Bahut Parshadi Karta Hai). Thereafter, appellant Parmal fired towards complainant, which hit the chest of the complainant's nephew Anil Sharma, due to which he had fallen on the ground. Co-accused Santosh was also carrying a pistol and fired twice towards complainant and Shailendra Raghuvanshi, which passed above the head of the complainant and by the side of Shailendra Raghuvanshi. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away from the spot by hurling filthy abuses. Complainant alongwith others took his nephew Anil Sharma to the hospital in a vehicle, where after check-up he was declared dead.
(ii) On the basis of aforesaid oral complaint made by the complainant, SI, S.K. Chaudhary lodged the FIR, Ex.P/1, against appellant Parmal, co-accused Santosh & Sarnam alongwith two other unknown persons at Police Station Kotwali Guna, District- Guna. On 22/1/2012 itself, injured Ravi was sent to District Hospital Guna for medical examination, where at about 20:00 hours, Dr. D.S. Rana medically examined him and found two punctured lacerated wounds on his right upper thigh, caused by firearm, within 6 hours of medical examination as per MLC report, Ex.P/7.
(iii) On the same day, Senior Scientific Officer, Scene of Crime, Mobile Unit, District Guna Dr. R.C. Ahirwar alongwith SI, S.K. Chaudhary, inspected the spot and gave his report, Ex.P/12. SI, S.K. Chaudhary prepared the spot map, Ex.P/5, and seized two fired empty cartridges, Articles A-1 & A-2, and one live cartridge, Article A-3, vide seizure memo, Ex.P/8, from the place of incident.
(iv) On 23/1/2012 at about 9.00 hours, SI, S.K. Chaudhary went to District Hospital Guna, called the witnesses issuing Safina form, Ex.P/2, prepared Naksha Panchayatnama, Ex.P/3 of the body of the deceased Anil Sharma and sent the same for postmortem examination vide letter, Ex.P/11. On the same day, at about 10:30 hours, Dr. P.N. Dhakad alongwith Dr Maneesh Jain, conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased and found one star shaped pallet wound on left side of his chest alongwith other injurie
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of intent behind firearm injuries and the credibility of witness statements in determining the appellant's guilt for murder and a....
The consistency and reliability of witness testimony are crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The absence of medical evidence and postmortem report creates reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court modified the conviction of Subhash from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for evidence of common intention in joint criminal acts.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304 I.P.C. for culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.
The consistent and trustworthy testimonies of eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
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.