Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAKESH SAKSENA, T. K. KAUSHAL, JJ.
JUHUR s/o RASOOL BUX – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 1794 and Cri. Appeal No. 1948 of 2001
Decided On : 31-03-2011
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - section 302, section 460, section 396 - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under sections 302, 460, and 396 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murders and dacoity. The court analyzed the evidence of recovery of looted items, blood-stained clothes, and weapons from the appellants, and the identification of the items by witnesses. The judgment also highlighted the legal requirements for proving guilt based on circumstantial evidence and the application of the presumption under section 114-A of the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murders of an elderly couple and the subsequent conviction and sentencing of the appellants for the crimes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on the evidence of recovery of looted items, blood-stained clothes, and weapons, as well as the motive of attracting the wealth of the deceased persons.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence of recovery, identification of items, and the motive presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal requirements for proving guilt based on circumstantial evidence, including the need for conclusive and reliable evidence to exclude any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The judgment also discussed the application of the presumption under section 114-A of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The convictions of appellants Juhur, Lukman, Sultan, and Lalit Mohan were affirmed, with a modification in the sentence. However, the conviction of appellant Ramsingh was set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT :
T. K. KAUSHAL, J.
1. Since, above two appeals arise out of common impugned judgment, this judgment shall govern disposal of aforesaid both the appeals.
2. These appeals have been directed against judgment dated 19-9-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari, District Shahdol in S. T. No. 34/2001, convicting and sentencing the appellants as below :
| Sr. No. | Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. | Under section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murders of Kodulal, aged about 70 years and his wife Sudhia Bai aged about 68 years. | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default 4 months R.I. (on two counts, to run consecutively) |
| 2. | Under section 460, Indian Penal Code for committing lurking house trespass by night for committing murder and dacoity. | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default 4 months R.I. |
| 3. | Under section 396, Indian Penal Code for committing dacoity with murder. | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default 6 months R.I. |
3. Facts, in short, are that on 23-11-2000 at about 6 A.M. as usual, Dadbal, agricultural labour of deceased Kodulal, (PW-7) knocked the doors of back side of the house, did not receive any response, out of anxiety, saw, through the hole of the door, dead bodies were lying in the courtyard. He came towards door of front side, door was opened by a push, he, inside the house, saw blood and dead bodies of Kodulal and his wife Sudhia Bai. He informed this fact to Sunder Singh (PW-10). Dadbal (PW-3) and Sunder Singh (PW-10) informed this incident to Govind Singh (PW-17). This incident was informed to relatives of the deceased Rupendra, grand son of the deceased persons (PW-1), Brijvasi, brother of the deceased Kodulal (PW-2), Urmila Bai, wife of Ramcharan Gupta, nephew-cum-adopted son of deceased (PW-4), Ramcharan, nephew-cum-adopted son of deceased Kodulal (PW-9), Ramkripal, younger brother of deceased Kodulal (PW-11).
4. On 23-11-2000 at about 12.45 P.M., Sunder Singh (PW-10) lodged F.I.R. Ex.P/11. Police Jaisingh Nagar registered a case at Crime No. 485/2000 under section 302, Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Simultaneously, Inquest proceeding was conducted. Naksha Panchayatnamas of dead body of Kodulal Ex.P/2 and Sudhia Bai Ex.P/3, were prepared. Dead bodies were sent to Community Health Centre, Jaisingh Nagar, Shahdol for post-mortem. Ramcharan (PW-9) and Urmila (PW-4) informed Police, the description and magnitude of looted ornaments and cash. Police recorded their statements under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code.
5. On 24-11-2000 at about 10 A.M., Dr. Sampurna Nand (PW-5) conducted post-mortem of Kodulal and Sudhia Bai.
6. According to post-mortem report Ex.P/7, following injuries were found on the body of Kodulal -
(1) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm variable depth on right side of neck obliquely placed.
(2) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x variable depth on right side of neck, 1cm above injury No. 1.
(3) Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x variable depth extending from lower part of left shoulder to the medial and of left calivic.
(4) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.8 cm x 0.6 cm just below and behind the left ear.
(5) A cut through wound on the left external ear, 0.6 cm in length.
All injuries had been caused by hard and sharp object within 12 hrs. of death. Death was caused within 24 to 48 hrs. from the post-mortem.
7. According to post-mortem report Ex.P/8, following injuries were found on the body of Sudhia Bai -
(1) One abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on anterior aspect of right shoulder
(2) Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm superior aspect of right shoulder
(3) Incised wound 6 cm x 5 cm on dorsal aspect of right elbow
(4) Incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm on right foot.
(6) Though there was no ligature mark present around the neck but ligature mark was present around the neck, more mark on right side and faint groove was found on left side. Ab
AI
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
