Jeetu vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(MP) 700

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak and Hirdesh , JJ.
Jeetu & Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2016 (Gwalior): against the judgment dated 10.3.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, District Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2015; Decided on 28.11.2024

Advocates appeared:
R. K. Sharma assisted by Brajesh Tyagi, Abhijeet Singh Tomar
and Ms. Bhavya Sharma for appellants; Pooran Kulshrestha, Additional Advocate General for respondent/State; Prem Singh Bhadauria for complainant.

Headnote:
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 299 -- culpable homicide -- is the first kind of unlawful homicide -- it is causing of death by doing an act: (i) with intention of causing death -- (ii) with intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause death -- or (iii) with knowledge that it is likely to cause death -- without one of these elements, an act, though criminal in nature and may occasion death, will not amount to offence of culpable homicide -- culpable homicide is of two kinds -- culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- in the scheme of Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide is genus and murder is species -- all murders are culpable homicide, but not vice versa -- culpable homicide sans special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- expressions “intent” and “knowledge” postulate existence of positive mental attitude of different degrees. (2006) 12 SCC 613 followed. [Paras 14, 17 & 21
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 299 -- three species of mens rea in culpable homicide -- (i) intention to cause death -- (ii) intention to cause dangerous injury -- (iii) knowledge that death is likely to happen. [Para 20
(3) Practice (Criminal) -- nature of offence does not only depend upon location of injury -- intention of accused is to be gathered from all facts and circumstances of case -- intention is question of fact -- is to be gathered from act of party. [Para 21
(4) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302/34 -- no vital injury caused -- appears from medical evidence and evidence of witnesses that accused was not having any knowledge that co-accused was having country made pistol (katta) and would fire gunshot at deceased -- no specific overt act attributed against accused for causing injury to deceased -- record does not show any intention of accused to commit murder of deceased -- in absence of any evidence of common intention, he is entitled to be acquitted of charge u/s. 302 of IPC. [Para 33
(5) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 302, 299, 300 and 304 Pt. II -- having regard to manner in which accused fired gunshot, accused could not be attributed mens rea requisite for bringing case under clause (3) of S. 300 -- no enmity between parties -- no allegation of premeditation or preconcerted plan -- sudden quarrel took place -- deceased tried to intervene -- on account of hurling of abuses, accused took out his country-made pistol (katta) and started firing, which caused injury to deceased on his right jaw -- it cannot be said that he had knowledge that use of such country-made pistol (katta) is likely to cause death of deceased -- offence would fall within third clause of S. 299 -- offence only culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s. 304 Part II -- sufficient to impose sentence already undergone by him, i.e., nine years and seven months.1966 CrLJ 171, (2006) 11 SCC 444, (2019) 5 SCC 639 and AIR 2006 SC 2531 followed. 2007 (III) MPWN 88, AIR 2018 SC 3961, (2019) 10 SCC 423, AIR 2008 SC 780 and (2014) 5 SCC 697 referred to. [Paras 35 & 36
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 299 && vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k && çFke çdkj dk fof/kfo:) ekuo o/k gS && ;g ,slk —R; djds e`R;q dkfjr djuk gksrk gS tks% (i) e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls && (ii) ,slh 'kkjhfjd {kfr dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls ftlls e`R;q dkfjr gks tkuk laHkkO; gks && ;k (iii) ;g Kku j[krs gq, fd laHkkO; gS fd og ml dk;Z ls e`R;q dkfjr dj ns] fd;k tkrk gS && buesa ls ,d rRo ds fcuk dk;Z] Hkys gh og vkijkf/kd ç—fr dk gks vkSj mlls e`R;q gks ldrh gks] vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k ds vijk/k dh dksfV esa ugha vk,xk && vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k nks çdkj dk gksrk gS && gR;k dh dksfV esa vkus okyk vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k rFkk gR;k dh dksfV esa ugha vkus okyk vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k && Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh ;kstuk esa] vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k oxZ gS vkSj gR;k çtkfr gS && lHkh gR;k,¡ vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k gksrh gSa] ijarq rRçfrdwy ugha gksrk && gR;k ds fo'ks"k vfHky{k.kksa ds fcuk vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k] gR;k dh dksfV esa ugha vkus okyk vkijkfèkd ekuo o/k gksrk gS && vfHkO;fä;ksa Þvk'k;ß vkSj ÞKkuß esa fHkUu&&fHkUu Js.kh ds lqfuf'pr ekufld euksHkko dh fo|ekurk dh dYiuk gksrh gSA ¼2006½ 12 ,llhlh 613 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14] 17 ,oa 21
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 299 && vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k esa vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr dh rhu çtkfr;‚a && (i) e`R;q dkfjr djus dk vk'k; && (ii) [krjukd {kfr dkfjr djus dk vk'k; && (iii) Kku fd laHkkO; gS fd e`R;q ts tk,A ¼iSjk 20
¼3½ çFkk ¼nkafMd½ && vijk/k dh ç—fr e`rd ds 'kjhj ij dkfjr {kfr dh vofLFkfr ij gh fuHkZj ugha gksrh && vk'k; dk vuqeku çdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && vk'k; rF; dk ç'u gS- ftldk vuqeku i{kdkj ds —R; ls yxk;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 21
¼4½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302@34 && dksbZ ekfeZd {kfr dkfjr ugha && fpfdRlh; lk{; vkSj lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; ls çrhr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qä dks Kku ugha Fkk fd lg&vfHkqä ds ikl nslh fiLrkSy ¼dêk½ gS vkSj og e`rd ij xksyh pyk nsxk && e`rd dks {kfr igq¡pkus ds fy, vfHk;qä ij dksbZ fofufnZ"V çR;{k ÑR; vkjksfir ugha && vfHkys[k ls vfHk;qä dk e`rd dh gR;k djus dk vk'k; nf'kZr ugha gksrk && lkekU; vk'k; ds lk{; ds vHkko esa og naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu vkjksi ls nks"keqä fd, tkus dk gdnkj gSA ¼iSjk 33
¼5½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302] 299] 300 rFkk 304 Hkkx 2 && ftl jhfr esa vfHk;qä us xksyh pykbZ mls /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ekeys dks /kkjk 300 ds [kaM ¼3½ ds v/khu ykus ds fy, vko';d vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr vfHk;qä ij vkjksfir ugha dh tk ldrh && i{kdkjksa ds e/; 'k=qrk ugha && iwoZfparu ;k iwoZfu/kkZfjr ;kstuk dk dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha && vpkud >xM+k gqvk && e`rd us chp&cpko djus dk ç;Ru fd;k && vi'kCn dgs tkus ds dkj.k vfHk;qä us viuh nslh fiLrkSy ¼dêk½ fudkyh vkSj xksfy;‚a pykus yxk] ftlls e`rd ds nk,¡ tcM+s ij {kfr igq¡ph && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd mls Kku Fkk fd ,slh nslh fiLrkSy ¼dêk½ ds mi;ksx ls e`rd dh e`R;q dkfjr gksuk laHkkO; gS && vijk/k /kkjk 299 ds r`rh; [kaM ds vèkhu vk,xk && vijk/k dsoy /kkjk 304 Hkkx 2 ds v/khu gR;k dh dksfV esa ugha vkus okyk vkijkf/kd ekuo o/k && mlds }kjk igyh gh Hkksxh xbZ dkykof/k] vFkkZr~ ukS o"kZ vkSj lkr ekl dk naMns'k vf/kjksfir djuk i;kZIrA 1966 lhvkj,yts 171] ¼2006½ 11 ,llhlh 444] ¼2019½ 5 ,llhlh 639 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2006 ,llh 2531 vuqlfjrA 2007 ¼3½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 88] ,vkbvkj 2018 ,llh 3961] ¼2019½ 10 ,llhlh 423] ,vkbvkj 2008 ,llh 780 rFkk ¼2014½ 5 ,llhlh 697 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 35 ,oa 36

ORDER

Hirdesh, J -- 1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10th of March, 2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahar, Distinct Bhind (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.192 of 2015 whereby, the appellants have been convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 9.4.2015, 13th day ritual meals were being served in the house of one Rashik Bihari Kaurav in Village Bidra due to sad demise of his brother Janak Singh. Uttam Singh Kaurav (since deceased) was sitting in the Courtyard of one Sitaram. At that time, everyone was going to attend the said ritual meals. Accused-appellants Jeetu and Awadhesh started quarreling with the relatives of Rakesh Singh Kaurav. Uttam Singh intervened and asked appellants not to indulge in fight on which, accused Jeetu and Awadhesh hurled filthy abuses at him. Thereafter, Jeetu took out his country-made pistol and with an intention to kill, fired at Uttam Singh, hitting his right jaw, as a result of which, Uttam Singh fell down. It is also alleged that accused Awadhesh fired a gunshot on the right hand of Deendayal Kori, who was standing there. After causing gunshot fires, both accused fled away from the spot. Family members of Uttam Singh and Deendayal came on spot and brought Uttam Singh and Deendayal in a tractor to Alampur Police Station from where they were sent to Hospital. Uttam Singh were declared dead by the Doctor while Deendayal Kori was admitted in hospital.

3. Rakesh Singh Kaurav (PW1), son of deceased Uttam Singh, came to Police Station and reported the incident about the death of deceased Uttam Singh. On the basis of which, Police Station Alampur recorded Merg No.04 of 2015 vide Ex.P2 u/S 174 of CrPC. FIR vide Ex.P1 in Crime No.26 of 2015 was registered for offence punishable under sections 302, 307/34 of IPC. Matter was investigated. Spot map vide Ex.P1 was prepared. Panchnama of dead body of deceased was prepared, postmortem was conducted and MLC of injured Deendayal Kori was done. Relevant seizures were made. After completion of investigation and other formalities, police filed Final Report/charge-sheet before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction.

4. The trial Court framed charges. Appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. During trial, prosecution in order to prove its case, examined as many as 15 witnesses. Accused, in order to lead their evidence, examined Manoj Kumar, Mangal Singh, Rashik Bihari Kaurav and Malkhan Singh Kaurav as DW-1 to DW-4.

5. After conclusion of trial, appreciating the evidence and exhibited documents available on record, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced them accordingly with fine, as stated in Para 1 of this judgment.

6. Challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it is submitted on behalf of appellants that learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants. It is further contended that Deendayal Kori (PW3), who is alleged to be one of eye-witnesses of the incident, did not support the prosecution case.

7. It is further contended that accused- Awadhesh did not cause any injury to deceased Uttam Singh and he had only caused a simple injury to Deendayal (PW-3) on right hand wrist joint, for which, he was not charged with offence under section 307 of IPC and in alternative, he was acquitted of offence under section 307 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC.

8. It is also contended that there was no per-concerted plan of accused and all of a sudden, the incident happened. Relying on the judgments of Gudda & Anr. v. State of M.P. (2007) 3 MPWN 88, Lakshmi Chand & Another v. State of U.P.,AIR 2018 SC 3961, Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anot