IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N.K. Gupta and Anand Pathak, JJ.
Bhagwanlal and others v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeals No.70, 85, 102 and 125 of 1999 (Gwalior) : against the common judgment of conviction dated 30.1.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.111 of 1994;
Decided on 10.2.2017.
Held : When remaining appellants neither assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal nor they were part of unlawful assembly at the time of incident, then the remaining appellants cannot be convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of section 149 of IPC.
In the light of evidence, the remaining appellants were entitled to get the advantage of right of private defence and it is not proved beyond doubt that they participated in an unlawful assembly to cause the death of deceased Bhaiyalal or to cause injuries to any of the victims including Jamunalal, Shivcharan etc. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the remaining appellants for offence under sections 148 or 302 with the help of section 149 of IPC. It is not proved beyond doubt that at the time of death of deceased Bhaiyalal, there were five accused persons who participated in the crime.
It is not alleged that after giving a blow to deceased Bhaiyalal on the pinna of deceased Bhaiyalal, appellant Kallu gave a second blow and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he intended to kill deceased Bhaiyalal. Since the incident was not preplanned and the intention of appellant Kallu was not to kill deceased Bhaiyalal then his common intention cannot be presumed with appellant Harkishan who gave the fatal blow to the deceased Bhaiyalal on his head.
Hence, appellant Harkishan was also wrongly convicted of offence under section 302 of IPC. Instead of that offence he should have been convicted of offence under section 304 (Part II) of IPC. AIR 1983 SC 172, AIR 1987 SC 1265, AIR 1994 SC 474 and AIR 2004 SC 387 referred to. AIR 1976 SC 912, AIR 1976 SC 2263 and AIR 2002 SC 2980 distinguished.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.302, 148 and 149 -- private defence -- at the time of first quarrel appellants Toran, Kallu and Harkishan were present and Kallu and Harkishan were aggressor -- it is not settled view that injuries caused to appellants Toran, Kallu and Harkishan are to be explained in FIR itself -- right of private defence not available to them -- appeal of Kallu abated due to his death -- appeal of Harkishan partly allowed and sentenced under section 304 Part II of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC.
Held : Hence, the plea of right of private defence was not available to the appellants when they started beating deceased Bhaiyalal when he went to the spot to stop appellant Kallu from transporting the bullock cart through his field. (2014)5 SCC 697 and AIR 1995 SC 2452 referred to.
¼1½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302] 304 Hkkx 2 ls lgifBr /kkjk 148 rFkk 149 && mica/kks ds v/khu vijk/k && vihykFkhZx.k esa ls izR;sd dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk mica/kks ds v/khu nks"kfl) rFkk naM+kfn"V fd;k x;k && ;g fl) ugha fd ml LFky ij fof/kfo:) teko dk xBu fd;k x;k && blfy,] naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 148 rFkk 149 ds v/khu vihykFkhZx.k esa ls fdlh dks Hkh nks"kfl) ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ;g fl) gS fd vihykFkhZx.k dYyw] rksju rFkk gjfd'ku us e`rd ij geyk fd;k && ;g vfHkdFku ugha fd;k x;k fd nwljk izgkj Hkh vihykFkhZ dYyw }kjk e`rd ij fd;k x;k && blfy,] ;g vuqeku ugha yxk;k tk ldrk fd e`rd dk o/k djus dk mldk vk'k; Fkk && pwafd ?kVuk iwoZfu;ksftr ugha Fkh rc lkekU; vk'k; dk vuqeku ugh yxk;k tk ldrk && dYyw dh e`R;q dh dkj.k vihy dk mi'keu gqvk && gjfd'ku e`rd dh e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, mŸkjnk;h Fkk ijarq /kkjk 302 ds v/khu nks"kflf) djuk pkfg, Fkk && mlds fy, rhu o"kZ dk dBksj dkjkokl mfpr gksxk&& 'ks"k vihykFkhZx.k rFkk vihykFkhZ rksju dh nks"kflf) rFkk naM+kns'k vikLr && vihykFkhZ rksju dks naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds LFkku ij /kkjk 323 ds v/khu nks"kfl) fd;k tkrk gS && 'ks"k vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy eatwj rFkk lHkh vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr && gjfd'ku dh vihy v'kr% etawjA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc 'ks"k vihykFkhZx.k us u rks e`rd HkS;kyky ij geyk fd;k vkSj uk gh os ?kVuk ds le; fof/kfo:) teko dk Hkkx Fks] rc 'ks"k vihykFkhZx.k naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, lh/ks rkSj ij ;k naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 149 dh lgk;rk ls nks"kfl) ugha fd, tk ldrsA lk{; dks ns[krs gq,] 'ks"k vihykFkhZx.k izkbosV izfrj{kk ds vf/kdkj dk ykHk izkIr djus ds gdnkj Fks rFkk ;g 'kadk ds ijs fl} ugha fd mUgksusa e`rd HkS;kyky dh e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy, ;k tequkyky] f'kopju bR;kfn lfgr ihfM+rksa esa ls fdlh dks Hkh {kfr dkfjr djus ds fy, fof/kfo:) teko esa Hkkx ugh fy;kA blfy,] fopkj.k U;k;ky; us 'ks"k vihykFkhZx.k dks naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 148 ;k /kkjk 149 dh lgk;rk ls 302 ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, nks"kfl} djus esa =`fV dkfjr dhA ;g 'kadk ls ijs fl} ugha fd HkS;kyky e`rd dh e`R;q ds le; os ikWp vfHk;qDr O;fDr Fks ftUgksus vijk/k esa Hkkx fy;kA ;g vfHkdFku ugha fd e`rd HkS;kyky ds dku ds ckgjh Hkkx ij izgkj djus ds i'pkr vihykFkhZ dYyw us nwljk izgkj fd;kA ;g vuqeku ugha yxk;k tk ldrk fd e`rd dk o/k djus dk mldk vk'k; FkkA pwafd ?kVuk iwoZ fu;ksftr ugha Fkh rFkk dYyw dk vk'k; e`rd HkS;kyky dk o/k djus dk ugha Fkk rc bl lkekU; vk'k; dk vuqeku vihykFkhZ gjfd'ku ds lkFk ugh ayxk;k tk ldrk ftlus e`rd HkS;kyky dks mlds flj ij ?kkrd izgkj fd;kA blfy,] vihykFkhZ gjfd'ku Hkh naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, xyr :i nks"kfl) fd;k x;kA bl vijk/k ds LFkku ij mls naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 304 Hkkx 2 ds v/khu vijk/k ds fy, nks"kfl) djuk pkfg, FkkA , vkbZ vkj 1983 ,l lh 172] , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1265] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 474 rFkk , vkb vkj 2004 ,l lh 387 fufnZ"VA , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 912] , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 2263 rFkk , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 2980 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 15] 17] 18 ,oa 20 ¼2½ naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302] 148 rFkk 149 && izkbosV izfrj{kk && izFke >xM+s ds le; vihykFkhZx.k rksju] dYyw rFkk gjfd'ku mifLFkr Fks rFkk dYyw rFkk gjfd'ku vH;kØked Fks && ;g lqLFkkfir er ugh gS fd vihykFkhZx.k rksju] dYyw rFkk gjfd'ku dks tks {kfr;kW dkfjr dh xbZ izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ esa Lo;a Li"Vhd`r gksa && mudks izkbosV izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj miyC/k ugha && dYyw vihykFkhZ dh vihy mldh e`R;q ds dkj.k lekIr && gjfd'ku vihykFkhZ dh vihy va'kr% eatwj rFkk naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds LFkku ij naM+ lafgrk dh /kkjk 304 Hkkx 2 ds v/khu naM+kfn"VA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vr% vihykFkhZx.k dks izkbosV izfrj{kk dk vf/kdkj miyC/k ugha Fkk tc mUgksaus e`rd HkS;kyky dks ihVuk 'kq: fd;k] tc og vihykFkhZ dYyw dks vius [ksr esa ls gksdj ifjogu dj us ls jksdus ds fy, ?kVuk LFky ij x;kA ¼2014½ 5 ,l lh lh 697 ,oa , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 2452 fufnZ"VA
Gupta, J. -- 1. All the appeals are connected with the common judgment dated 30.1.1999, passed by Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.111/1994, hence, the present appeals are hereby disposed of, by the present common judgment.
2. The appellants have challenged judgment dated 30.1.1999, being aggrieved with their conviction of offence under section 302 or 302 r/w 149 and section 148 of IPC, whereas each of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively.
3. Prosecution’s case, in short, is that on 23.3.1994 at about 9:00 p.m. complainant Shivcharan (PW1) along with deceased Bhaiyalal etc. were present at their field at village Sakatpur. They were sitting near the well. At about 9:00 p.m., appellants Kallu, Harkishan and Jai Singh went to that field having a bullock cart. They tried to pass the bullock cart through the field of deceased Bhaiyalal and, therefore, Bhaiyalal went near the bullock cart and prohibited them to pass the bullock cart through his field. The appellant Kallu gave a blow of ‘’ballam’’ causing injury near the ear of deceased Bhaiyalal. On shouting of Bhaiyalal, witnesses Shivcharan (PW1), Radheshyam (PW5) and Jamunalal (PW8) went to the spot. When they asked the appellants as to why Kallu assaulted deceased Bhaiyalal, then they started quarrel. On shouting of Kallu, other appellants, namely, Haricharnan, Kamal Singh, Laxman Singh, Lal Singh, Mangilal, Bhagwanlal, Toran and Ramcharan came to the spot. Bhagwanlal and Mangilal exhorted their companions and they started causing assault upon Jamunalal, Bhaiyalal, Radheshyam and others. Appellants Toran Singh and Harkishan gave blows of sticks on the deceased Bhaiyalal, whereas the remaining appellants caused injuries to other victims like Shivcharan, Radheshyam and Jamunalal etc. Due to such assaults done by the appellants, Bhaiyalal had expired at the spot. Shivcharan could not visit the police station due to fear of the appellants, whereas the appellants ran away with the help of a tractor of Man Singh.
4. On intimation given to the police, SHO Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW12) from Police Station Vijaypur, (District Guna) visited village Sakatpur and complainant Shivcharan (PW1) had lodged a Dehati Nalishi (FIR) Ex.P-1. He prepared the memo of position of the dead body of deceased Bhaiyalal as Ex.P-3 and the body of deceased Bhaiyalal was sent for post-mortem, whereas the injured persons were sent for their medico-legal examination. Dr. S.O. Bhola (PW9) performed post-mortem on the body of deceased Bhaiyalal and gave a report Ex.P-25. He found only three injuries to deceased Bhaiyalal, one was on his left pinna, second was on back of left ear, which was bone deep, and third was a contusion on tempo-parietal region. On opening the body, he found that below the third injury there was a fracture of tempo-parietal bone and due to head injury, deceased Bhaiyalal had died. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain (PW13) examined victims Lalliram, Shivcharan(PW1) and Jamunalal (PW8) and gave reports Ex.P-47A to Ex.P-49A. He found as many as ten injuries to victim Jamunalal. Dr.R.K.Jain (PW7) examined victim- Jamunalal radio-logically and gave a report Ex.P-14. A fracture of fifth metacarpal bone was found to the victim Jamunalal.
5. The SHO- Yudhisthir Singh Tomar (PW10) picked up the blood stained and ordinary soil from the spot and seizure memo Ex.P-5 was prepared. He also prepared spot map Ex.P-27. He arrested various appellants and recorded their memo under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Various weapons like ballam, luhangi and lathis (sticks) were recovered from various appellants. The seized articles were sent for Forensic Science analysis. However, till the decision of the case, no report of Forensic Science Laboratory was produced. Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed before JMFC Raghogarh, Guna, who committed the case to the Court of Session.
6. The appellants took a plea that they were th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.