Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
KHUMAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2019 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl) No. 6647 of 2018)
Decided On : 27-08-2019
(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Murder – Life sentence – Entire incident occurred when appellant had taken his buffaloes for grazing in field of deceased for which deceased objected and drove all buffaloes out of his field – It is in these circumstances, appellant became furious and abused deceased and caused injuries on his head in a sudden fight with axe – There was no premeditation for occurrence and because of grazing of cattle, in a sudden fight, occurrence had taken place – Where occurrence took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on part of accused, it falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Though weapon used by appellant was axe and injuries were inflicted on vital part of body viz. head, knowledge is attributable to appellant-accused that injuries are likely to cause death – Conviction of appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is to be modified as conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
(b) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Sudden quarrel arose between parties due to trivial issue of grazing buffaloes – There is nothing to suggest that offence was committed by appellant only because deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste – Conviction of appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable – Conviction of appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is set aside and he is acquitted of said charge – Conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC modified as conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment to period already undergone – Appeal partly allowed and appellant ordered to be released forthwith. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the Case:
Instant appeal arises out of the judgment dated 02.02.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.
Findings of Court:
Offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, fact that deceased was belonging to “Khangar”-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of Scheduled Caste and therefore, conviction of appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 02.02.2018 in Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as under:-On 14.08.2005 at about 11:00 AM, complainant-Rajaram (PW-1) along with his brother Raghuveer (PW-2), deceased Veer Singh and relative Badam Singh (PW-7) had gone to cultivate the fields and for grazing their cattle. When deceased Veer Singh was cultivating the field and others were grazing the cattle, appellant-accused Khuman Singh came to the field of deceased Veer Singh and left his buffaloes for grazing. Deceased Veer Singh objected to it and drove the buffaloes of the appellant-accused out of his field on which, appellant became furious and started abusing and scolding the deceased that how the deceased who belongs to Khangar Caste could drive away the buffaloes of Thakurs out of his field. When deceased objected to it, it is alleged that the appellant with an intention to kill the deceased, attacked him with an axe due to which, deceased Veer Singh fell down. Thereafter, appellant-accused allegedly gave two-three blows on the head of the deceased with axe. On seeing the complainant (PW-1), his brother (PW-2) and Badam Singh (PW-7) coming, appellant-accused ran away from the spot. Deceased died on the spot itself. Rajaram (PW-1) lodged the Dehati Nalishi/complaint (Ex.-P1) based on which, FIR in Crime Case No.306/2005 was registered against the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Dr. Pradeep Sharma (PW-5) had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Veer Singh and found six injuries on his head. PW-5 issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.P10) opining that the cause of death was shock due to excessive external and internal bleeding. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined three eye witnesses viz. Rajaram (PW-1), Raghuveer (PW-2) and Badam Singh (PW-7) who have spoken about the occurrence and R.C. Bhoj, Police Incharge (PW-4), who has recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.-P1), Dr. Pradeep Sharma (PW-5) who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased and other witnesses. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and vide judgment dated 11.09.2006 convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Since the deceased was a Scheduled Caste, the appellant-accused was also convicted under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred appeal before the High Court.
5. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused by holding that mere delay in recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not fatal to the case of prosecution. After referring to the evidence of Mohinder Kanwar (PW-9)-Investigating Officer, the High Court held that there was a communal tension in the locality and therefore, PW-9 could not immediately record the statement of the witnesses and therefore, delay in recording the statement of witnesses would not affect the case of prosecution. The High Court also held that the delay in sending the FIR (Ex.-P9) to the
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
