Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ajit Singh, N. K. Gupta, JJ.
State Of M. P. – Petitioner
Versus
Maiyadeen – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 277 of 1995
Decided On : 12-09-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vijay Pandey
For the Respondent: S. C. Datt, Siddharth Datt
The judgment establishes the legal principle that the assessment of evidence, corroboration with medical evidence, and the establishment of common intention and joint criminal action are crucial in convicting the accused.
Headnote:
MURDER - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 325/148, Section 323/148 - The judgment discusses the injuries caused to the deceased and other victims, the testimony of the eye witnesses, and the legal provisions related to common intention, joint criminal action, and the assessment of evidence. The court found that the respondent Maiyadeen had committed a crime under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, whereas the respondent Ramswaroop had committed an offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. The State's appeal against the respondents Sitaram, Tulsidas, and Bandoo @ Bandi was dismissed, and it was accepted against the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop. The respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop were convicted of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Anandilal was killed while offering pooja at Chabutara. The respondents, along with other accused persons, assaulted the deceased and other family members and relatives, resulting in the death of Anandilal and injuries to others. The respondents abjured their guilt, claiming false implication due to enmity with the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent Maiyadeen had committed a crime under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, whereas the respondent Ramswaroop had committed an offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. The State's appeal against the respondents Sitaram, Tulsidas, and Bandoo @ Bandi was dismissed, and it was accepted against the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop. The respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop were convicted of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the assailants, the assessment of injuries, the establishment of common intention, and the evaluation of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles related to common intention, joint criminal action, and the assessment of evidence to establish the guilt of the respondents. It also discussed the application of section 302 and section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in convicting the respondents.
Final Decision: The State's appeal against the respondents Sitaram, Tulsidas, and Bandoo @ Bandi was dismissed, and it was accepted against the respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop. The respondents Maiyadeen and Ramswaroop were convicted of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced to life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
N. K. GUPTA, J.
The State has preferred the present appeal against the respondents No. 1 to 5 and 13 after getting leave vide order dated 9-1-1995 against the judgment dated 5-10-1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No. 77/1992, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under sections 302 or 302/149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 16-7-1992, at about 6 p.m., the deceased Anandilal went to offer a pooja at Chabutara (Platform) of Thakur Baba, one mile away from village Banharikala (Police Station Ajaygarh, District Satna). He was accompanied by Shukla Ahirwar (P.W.9), Rammilan (P.W.1) and other family members and relatives. At about 7 p.m., the respondents along with other accused persons reached the spot. The respondent No. 1 Maiyadeen told the deceased Anandilal that his son had assaulted the son of the respondent Maiyadeen by Chappal and therefore, he would kill Anandilal and suddenly he gave a blow of Lathi (stick) on his head. Thereafter, all the accused persons brutally assaulted the deceased Anandilal with lathis (sticks). Hence, deceased Anandilal died at the spot. Rammilan who tried to save deceased Anandilal also sustained some injuries caused by various accused persons. Similarly, Munnilal (P.W.2), Prabhu (P.W.5), Hirabai (P.W.4) and Raja Bhaiya (P.W.6) also sustained injuries in saving deceased Anandilal. Rammilan took the body of deceased Anandilal to the Police Station Ajaygarh and informed about the incident. Rammilan, Munnilal, Prabhu, Raja Bhaiya and Hirabai had also been sent for their medico legal examination. Dr. V. S. Upadhyay (P.W.15) examined the injured witnesses Rammilan (P.W.1), Munnilal (P.W.2), Prabhu and Raja Bhaiya (P.W.6) and gave his reports, Ex.P/30 to Ex.P/33, whereas Dr. U. K. Gupta (P.W.16) examined the injured witness Hirabai and gave his report, Ex.P/34. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. Dr. P. C. Shrivastava (P.W.14) had performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Anandilal and gave his report, Ex.P/29. The police seized lathis from different accused persons. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Ajaygarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Panna and ultimately, it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, Panna.
3. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took a plea that deceased Anandilal had enmity with so many persons and they had been falsely implicated in the matter. In this connection, Rajkumar Yadav (D.W.1) and Dassu Kontar (D.W.2) were examined as defence witnesses.
4. Additional Sessions Judge, Panna after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted the respondents No. 1 and 2 of offence under sections 325/148 (2 counts) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to jail sentence of the period for which they remained in the custody with fine of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- respectively for each count of charge. Whereas respondents No. 3 to 5 and 13 have been convicted of offence under section 323/148 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to jail sentence of the period for which they remained in the custody with fine of Rs. 100/-. However, the trial Court acquitted all the accused persons including the respondents of the charges under sections 302 or 302/149 of Indian Penal Code.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
6. The present case depends upon the injuries caused to the deceased and other victims along with testimony of the eye witnesses. Dr. P. C. Shrivastava (P.W.14) performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Anandilal and gave his report, Ex.P/29. He found following injuries :-
1. Lacerated wound 3 “¼" and “¼" bone deep on the right side of the scalp in parietal region. Effusion of the blood present in this region. Fracture of the right parietal bone present. Blood clots present on the meninges. This injury is fatal. 2. Contusion 2 “½" x “¾" on left side of the back in upper part
