Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 999 (MP)

RAMLAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2002-10-30

S.B.SAKRIKAR, S.L.KOCHAR

body2002
JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 29-4-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Agar District Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 74/92 whereby he has convicted the appellant No. 1 Ramlal and No. 7 Ramesh for the offence under sections 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for three months, appellants No. 2 Bhanwarlal, No. 3 Shivlal, No. 4 Lalsingh, No. 5 Bhagwansingh and No. 6 Nirbhaysingh u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for three months, appellant No. 1 Ramlal u/s 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one year and further appellants Bhanwarlal, Shivlal, Lalsingh, Bhagwansingh and Ramesh u/s 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and" sentenced them each to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one year. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the trial Court was that on 10-12-1991 at 8.00 PM the complainant (deceased) Gangaram was going to the house of Bapulal for some welding purposes. On account of old enmity, the appellant No. 1 Ramlal s/o Mangilal stabbed him in his abdomen and appellant No. 7 Ramesh also dealt a blow by knife at his stomach. The complainant started bleeding. Other appellants Bhanwarlal, Nirbhaysingh, Shivlal, Lalsingh and Bhagwansingh caught hold of him and surrounded and said that he be done to death. At that time, Narayansingh and Gokulsingh happened there and intervened on which the appellants fled away from the scene of occurrence. They took Gangaram at Badagaon Police Chowki where Gangaram lodged the report (Ex. P/16) at 8.20 PM. Thereafter, Police Nalkheda which was having jurisdiction over the crime, Registered the F.I.R. Ex. P/17 on the basis of the report Ex. P/16. The injured Gangaram was sent to Shajapur hospital wherefrom he was referred to MYH, Indore where he breathed his last. After performing usual investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted and the learned Trial Court after trial and hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. P/17 on the basis of the report Ex. P/16. The injured Gangaram was sent to Shajapur hospital wherefrom he was referred to MYH, Indore where he breathed his last. After performing usual investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted and the learned Trial Court after trial and hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned hereinabove. We have heard Shri H.S. Oberoi, learned Senior counsel with Shri P. Prasad Advocate for the appellants and Shri G. Desai, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State and perused the entire record. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is two-fold. According to him, the appellant No. 1 Ramlal could be held guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code because, he has caused a solitary knife blow to the deceased. There was no repetition of blow by him and no case is made out against the appellants No. 2 to 7, worth conviction u/s 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, these appellants (From No. 2 to 7) have been falsely implicated. The conviction of the appellants is based on the First Information Report (Ex. P/16) which has been used as dying declaration u/s 32 of the Evidence Act as well as the statements of ocular witnesses PW-3 Gokulsingh s/o Mangilal and PW-7 Narayansingh coupled with the evidence of medical experts Dr PW-12 Rajkumar Singh and PW-13 Dr Suresh. According to Ex. P/16 (dying declaration), the fatal injury was caused by appellant No. 1 Ramlal. The knife penetrated inside the stomach and this is the only injury sustained by the deceased. Overt act attributed to appellant No. 7 Ramesh has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Suresh PW-13 who attended the deceased first in point of time and also examined, found only one injury at the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, it is as clear as day light that the deceased sustained only one injury and the author of the said injury is appellant No. 1 Ramesh. The version of deceased in the First Information Report (Ex. P/16) is duly corroborated by eye-witnesses PW-3 Gokulsingh s/o Mangilal and PW-7 Narayansingh. Therefore, it is as clear as day light that the deceased sustained only one injury and the author of the said injury is appellant No. 1 Ramesh. The version of deceased in the First Information Report (Ex. P/16) is duly corroborated by eye-witnesses PW-3 Gokulsingh s/o Mangilal and PW-7 Narayansingh. For consideration of allegation against the appellants regarding forming unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of deceased Gangaram, the only allegation against the appellant Nos. 2 to 6 is that they caught hold of the deceased and also surrounded him. Admittedly, there is no allegation and evidence against the appellants No. 2 to 6 about possessing deadly weapons. So far as the allegation of using of knife against the appellant No. 7 Ramesh is concerned, that is belied by the medical evidence. Learned Trial Court has also given finding relying on the statement of PW-7 Narayansingh that the blow by knife by appellant No. 7 Ramesh did not cause any injury on the person of the deceased. In view of the statement given by PW-7 Narayansingh in para 11 that at the first instance, he saw that the deceased Gangram had caught hold of the hands of appellant No. 1 Ramlal who was holding a knife stained with blood and scuffle was going on between them and at that time the deceased Gangaram was holding the hands of appellant No. 1 Ramlal. On the basis of this evidence, it can easily be discerned that either the appellants No. 2 to 7 were not present at the scene of occurrence or that they were at a distance from the deceased Gangaram and Ramlal who were grappling and the deceased was trying to snatch the knife. Because, if appellants No. 2 to 7 were holding the deceased and also surrounded him, in that situation, the deceased would have not been in a position to catch hold of the hands of appellant No. 1 Ramlal and there was no question between them regarding scuffle and snatching of knife. The appellants No. 2 to 7 would have not allowed the deceased Gangaram to do so. The contents of the First Information Report (Ex. P/16) lodged by the deceased as well as the statements of PW-3 Gokulsingh s/o Gangaram and PW-7 Narayansingh, it is crystal clear that the parties were having previous enmity and some litigation was also going on. The appellants No. 2 to 7 would have not allowed the deceased Gangaram to do so. The contents of the First Information Report (Ex. P/16) lodged by the deceased as well as the statements of PW-3 Gokulsingh s/o Gangaram and PW-7 Narayansingh, it is crystal clear that the parties were having previous enmity and some litigation was also going on. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the proposition putforth by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant No. 1 could be responsible only for the offence u/s 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code. It was not a case of sudden fight and unintentional as well as without aiming at a particular part of body the blow was given by the accused. In the present case, the appellant No. 1 was having previous enmity with the deceased and because of which, he dealt a severe knife blow at his vital part of the body like abdomen. The blow was very severe which is clear from the statement of Dr. Suresh (PW-13) and the doctor who performed the autopsy i.e. PW-12 Dr. Rajkumar Singh. Omentum was coming out and there was serious damage to the intestines. This solitary injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the act of appellant No. 1 falls within the ambit of section 300 (thirdly) punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. See : Gudar Dusadh Vs. State of Bihar, and Chahat Khan Vs. The State of Haryana, Enmity is a double aged weapon. Because of enmity, the appellant No. 1 could cause severe blow resulting into death of deceased and at the same time deceased and other eye-witnesses could implicate members of other party who were either not present at the scene of occurrence and/or if present, were not the members of unlawful assembly. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appellants No. 2 to 7 were not the members of unlawful assembly. The overt act of appellant No. 7 Ramesh has not been corroborated by medical evidence. On the contrary, the same has been belied. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the appellants No. 2 to 7 were not the members of unlawful assembly. The overt act of appellant No. 7 Ramesh has not been corroborated by medical evidence. On the contrary, the same has been belied. The other appellants No. 2 to 6 were empty handed and as mentioned above, if they were really present and participated in the incident, they would have not allowed the deceased catching hold of the hands of the appellant No. 1 who grappled with him for snatching the knife. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold the appellant No. 1 Ramlal alone responsible for committing murder of deceased Gangaram and the appellants No. 2 to 7 entitled to get benefit of doubt because of lack of reliable evidence to establish about their presence and participation as members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit murder of deceased Gangaram. We may refer in this regard the judgment of the Supreme Court and High Court rendered in the cases of 1976 MPWN (I) 300, Darshan Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab, and Hoshiar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, , Zahoor vs. State of U.P., Darshansingh vs. State of Punjab and Hoshiarsingh vs. State of Punjab, respectively. Resultantly the appeal of appellant No. 1 Ramlal fails and is hereby dismissed. His conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court are affirmed. However, the appeal of appellants No. 2 to 7 (Bhanwarlal, Shivlal, Lalsingh, Bhagwansingh, Nirbhaysingh and Ramesh) succeeds and is hereby allowed. Their conviction and sentences as imposed by the trial Court are set aside. Fine if deposited, shall be refunded to them. They are on bail. Their bail and personal bonds shall stand discharged. Final Result : Dismissed