Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 1150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, Ashok Kumar Joshi, JJ.
Harinarayan – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Cri. A. Nos. 503, 898 of 2008
Decided On : 23-09-2017
For the Appellant : A.K. Jain.
For the Respondent: S.S. Dhakad.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, the concept of common intention under Section 34 of IPC, and the legal principles governing sudden fights.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder - Sections 302, 326/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Section 300 of IPC, specifically Exception 4, and cited case law to establish the legal principles governing sudden fights and common intention. The court highlighted the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the victims, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the cruel manner in which the act was committed. The court also addressed the role of each accused in the commission of the offense, emphasizing the concept of common intention under Section 34 of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found guilty of murder and causing grievous injuries under Sections 302, 326/34 of IPC. The deceased and the victims were assaulted by the appellants near an agricultural field, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of murder and causing grievous injuries based on the nature of the injuries, absence of premeditation, and the concept of common intention.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, the absence of premeditation, the nature of injuries, and the concept of common intention under Section 34 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the nature of injuries, case law, and the concept of common intention to establish the guilt of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offenses under Sections 302, 326/34, 323 of IPC.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2008 passed in Special Case No. 14/2008, whereby the appellants having been found guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 326/34 of IPC were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing murder of Amru and five years sentence for causing grievous injuries to Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2). The prosecution story reveals that the deceased Amru along with the complainant Babu Adiwasi (PW-1), Ramesh (PW-3) and Paatiram (PW-2) on 26.09.2007 while coming back from the village market met the appellants near the agricultural field where soyabean was sown. That appellant Balveer was carrying lathi whereas Harnam alias Harinarayan Sahu was carrying "sariya" (iron rod). That Amru asked for the wages on behalf of his wife, who had worked in Balveer's field, whereon Balveer got infuriated and inflicted blows with lathi. That when Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) interfered, they were also given beating with lathi and saria by both the appellants. As a result whereof, Amru succumbed to the injuries whereas Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) who sustained injuries. While running away from the place fell on their way. The complaint lodged by Babu (PW-1) was registered as Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/24) on the basis whereof FIR (Ex. P/25) was registered. Police party was deployed. Investigation was set in motion. Spot maps and inquest were prepared (Ex. P/12, P-13, P/14). Blood stained soil of the deceased was seized vide Ex. P/15, whereas of injured Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3), the blood stained soil was collected vide Ex. P/16 and P/17. The body of Amru was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9), who gave the report Ex. P/11, wherein following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased:-
"1. External Injury - Lacerated wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm left temporal region.
2. Lacerated wound 2 x 2 x 1 cm above upper lib with and compound fracture of upper jaw with loose of incise and canine tooth.
3. Lacerated wound above left eyebrow with compound fracture of left orbit and laceration of left eye wall (2 x 2 x 1 cm size)."
2. As per doctor's opinion, the cause of death was coma due to head injury.
3. The injuries on Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined by Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9). As per Ex. P/8 following injuries were found on the body of Paatiram (PW-2):-
"1. Incise wound 4 x 2 x 1 cm right side chin.
2. Incise wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm right side mouth
3. Incise wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm lateral to right eye.
4. Incise wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm right side vertex
5. Incise wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm let side chin
6. Incise wound 1 x ½ x ½ cm lateral to left eye."
And vide Ex. P/9, Ramesh (PW-3) was found having sustained following injuries:-
"1. Incise wound 1 x ½ x ½ cm above right eyebrow.
2. Incise wound 2 x 1 x ½ cm above left eyebrow.
3. Incise wound 1 x ½ x ½ cm upper lip.
4. Incise wound 2 x 1 x ½ cm back of head.
5. Swelling and contusion on doram of left hand."
4. The accused were arrested. After necessary investigation charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed for trial. Appellants abjured their guilt and stated that they are falsely implicated.
5. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses, put of these Babu (PW-1), Paatiram (PW-2) and Ramesh (PW-3) were examined as the eyewitnesses, the doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the injured victims was examined as Dr. S.K. Shainde (PW-9). Dr. Ved Prakash Narve, Assistant Professor who treated Ramesh (PW-3) was examined as PW-11.
6. The defence that as the incident is of night and the police has not seized the articles said to have been purchased by the victims from the market, therefore, there was the possibility that victims were looted by unknown persons and the accused are falsely implicated was discarded by the trial Court on the findings that the assailants, i.e. accused persons and the victims were the residents of same village and were known
