Addha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2000
(From the Judgement and Order dated 28.1.99 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 473 of 1989)
(From the Judgement and Order dated 28.1.99 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 473 of 1989)
Petitioner: Addha
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 532 of 2000
(From the Judgement and Order dated 28.1.99 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 473 of 1989)
(From the Judgement and Order dated 28.1.99 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 473 of 1989)
Judges: UMESH C. BANERJEE & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 28, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocates (AC), Mr. C. Siddhartha and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Alok Bachavat, Ms. Vibha Makhija Datta, Ms. Bharati Tyagi , Advocate for Mr. Uma Nath Singh, Advocates for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 304, part II with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Altercation between ‘B’ and ‘P’ – ‘J’ intervening – ‘R’ arriving and taking away ‘B’ – ‘J’ and others proceeding to house of ‘R’ – There ‘J’ and others attacked – ‘J’ with PW and deceased sustaining injuries – No statement by ‘J’, the informant that accused ‘A’ caused any injury on the head of the deceased, but stated to have given lathi blow on the ribs of deceased – Complete darkness and not possible to see as to who caused injuries – No mention of details of attack by informant in statement – Incident happening pursuant to quarrel. Held that accused ‘A’ had no deliberate intention to cause death of deceased. Hence, offence under section 302 IPC not made out but held guilty under section 304, part II. (Paras 5, 6)
JUDGEMENT:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
1. Appellant Addha, son of Roop Lal, was tried by the first additional court of sessions, Mandla (Madhya Pradesh), along with four others, for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC. The sessions court held that there was no unlawful assembly as alleged by the prosecution and the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 for having caused the death of one Sher Singh. Two other accused, namely, Roop Lal and Buddhulal were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the accused were confirmed by the High Court.
2. The incident in question took place on 19.7.1986 at about 9.00 p.m. PW-1 Jugal Kishore, along with PW-3 Mishridas, was returning from the nearby flour mill and they saw accused Buddhulal in a wordy altercation with PW-4, Pancham. Jugal Kishore intervened and tried to dissuade them from quarrelling. At that time, Buddhulal’s father Roop Lal came there and took his son to his house. But on reaching their house, Buddhulal and Roop Lal started hurling abusive words at PW-1, Jugal Kishore. On hearing this, deceased Sher Singh, PW-2 Gulab and some other persons came to the place of occurrence and there ensued a quarrel. It is alleged that while Buddhulal was armed with an axe, Roop Lal was armed with a bichua and Addha was having a lathi. It is the prosecutions case that Roop Lal inflicted an injury on PW-1 Jugal Kishore and Buddhulal dealt a blow on the arm of Gulab. It is also the prosecution’s case that Addha dealt 2-3 blows on the head and chest of the deceased Sher Singh. Deceased Sher Singh fell on the ground. He was taken to the nearby hospital where he was declared dead.
3. On the next day by about 9.20 a.m., PW-1 Jugal Kishore gave the statement in F.I.R. before the police and PW-6, sub -inspector of Nainpur police station, took over the investigation. He held inquest on the body of the deceased and the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination. PW-8 conducted the postmortem and it was revealed that 7th and 8th ribs of left side of the chest of the deceased were fractured. PW-8 deposed that the injuries on the head and the ribs were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim.
4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution case is not true and correct and that PW-1 Jugal Kishore, deceased Sher Singh, PW-2 Gulab and others came and attacked the accused. It was also contended that the accused Roop Lal and others had sustained injuries in the course of the incident. It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove that appellant – Addha caused the vital injuries to the deceased Sher Singh. We find some force in the above contention.
5. According to PW-1 Jugal Kishore, when he was coming along with PW-3 Mishridas, he saw Buddhulal and PW-4 Pancham quarrelling. He intervened in the quarrel and tried to send them away. By the time the first accused Roop Lal also reached there and took Buddhulal home. PW1 also alleged that he was severely abused by the first accused Roop Lal. The incident is alleged to have taken place near the house of Roop Lal. Even according to the F.I.R. statements given by PW-1 before the police, after the first incident of quarrel between Buddhulal and Pancham, PW-1 Jugal Kishore and others proceeded to the house of Roop Lal. When they reached the house of Roop Lal, the accused persons started attacking PW-1 Jugal Kishore and others. PW-2 Gulab has deposed that his house is located about half a mile from the place of incident. It is certain that he along with PW-1 and others must have come to the house of the accused with an intention to pick up a quarrel with them and there ensued the attack and the counter-attack and in that incident PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased Sher Singh sustained injuries . It is also pertinent to note that in the F.I.R , PW-1 has not stated that the appellant caused any injury to the deceased Sher Singh on his head. In the F.I.R , it is only stated that appellant – Addha had given a lathi blow on the ribs of Sher Singh and as a result thereof Sher Singh sat down and later died. The other accused were also armed with lathis. There is also evidence to the effect that there was complete darkness and it was not possible to see who had caused the injuries. PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that when he proceeded from his house to the place of incident, it was dark . PW-4 also admitted in the cross- examination that there was complete darkness and he could identify only some of them.
6. In view of the failure of PW-1 to mention the details of attack by the appellant as against deceased Sher Singh and in view of the fact that the entire incident happened pursuant to a quarrel between two groups of people and that the appellant had no deliberate intention to cause death of Sher Singh, we do not think that an offence under section 302 IPC had been made out against the appellant. The incident was the result of a sudden quarrel between the two groups and in that melee the appellant must have used a lathi which caused injury to Sher Singh which ultimately resulted in his death. In that background it is difficult to hold that the appellant committed the offence of murder. The offence would only come under section 304, part II of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we acquit the appellant of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and find him guilty of offence punishable under section 304 part-II of IPC.
7. We are told that the appellant has been undergoing imprisonment ever since the date of sessions court’s judgement, which was pronounced on 28.9. 1988. Therefore we hold that the sentence already undergone by the appellant is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances of the case, appellant Addha, son of Roop Lal is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal would stand allowed accordingly.
1. Appellant Addha, son of Roop Lal, was tried by the first additional court of sessions, Mandla (Madhya Pradesh), along with four others, for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC. The sessions court held that there was no unlawful assembly as alleged by the prosecution and the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 for having caused the death of one Sher Singh. Two other accused, namely, Roop Lal and Buddhulal were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. The conviction and sentence of the accused were confirmed by the High Court.
2. The incident in question took place on 19.7.1986 at about 9.00 p.m. PW-1 Jugal Kishore, along with PW-3 Mishridas, was returning from the nearby flour mill and they saw accused Buddhulal in a wordy altercation with PW-4, Pancham. Jugal Kishore intervened and tried to dissuade them from quarrelling. At that time, Buddhulal’s father Roop Lal came there and took his son to his house. But on reaching their house, Buddhulal and Roop Lal started hurling abusive words at PW-1, Jugal Kishore. On hearing this, deceased Sher Singh, PW-2 Gulab and some other persons came to the place of occurrence and there ensued a quarrel. It is alleged that while Buddhulal was armed with an axe, Roop Lal was armed with a bichua and Addha was having a lathi. It is the prosecutions case that Roop Lal inflicted an injury on PW-1 Jugal Kishore and Buddhulal dealt a blow on the arm of Gulab. It is also the prosecution’s case that Addha dealt 2-3 blows on the head and chest of the deceased Sher Singh. Deceased Sher Singh fell on the ground. He was taken to the nearby hospital where he was declared dead.
3. On the next day by about 9.20 a.m., PW-1 Jugal Kishore gave the statement in F.I.R. before the police and PW-6, sub -inspector of Nainpur police station, took over the investigation. He held inquest on the body of the deceased and the dead body was then sent for postmortem examination. PW-8 conducted the postmortem and it was revealed that 7th and 8th ribs of left side of the chest of the deceased were fractured. PW-8 deposed that the injuries on the head and the ribs were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim.
4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution case is not true and correct and that PW-1 Jugal Kishore, deceased Sher Singh, PW-2 Gulab and others came and attacked the accused. It was also contended that the accused Roop Lal and others had sustained injuries in the course of the incident. It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove that appellant – Addha caused the vital injuries to the deceased Sher Singh. We find some force in the above contention.
5. According to PW-1 Jugal Kishore, when he was coming along with PW-3 Mishridas, he saw Buddhulal and PW-4 Pancham quarrelling. He intervened in the quarrel and tried to send them away. By the time the first accused Roop Lal also reached there and took Buddhulal home. PW1 also alleged that he was severely abused by the first accused Roop Lal. The incident is alleged to have taken place near the house of Roop Lal. Even according to the F.I.R. statements given by PW-1 before the police, after the first incident of quarrel between Buddhulal and Pancham, PW-1 Jugal Kishore and others proceeded to the house of Roop Lal. When they reached the house of Roop Lal, the accused persons started attacking PW-1 Jugal Kishore and others. PW-2 Gulab has deposed that his house is located about half a mile from the place of incident. It is certain that he along with PW-1 and others must have come to the house of the accused with an intention to pick up a quarrel with them and there ensued the attack and the counter-attack and in that incident PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased Sher Singh sustained injuries . It is also pertinent to note that in the F.I.R , PW-1 has not stated that the appellant caused any injury to the deceased Sher Singh on his head. In the F.I.R , it is only stated that appellant – Addha had given a lathi blow on the ribs of Sher Singh and as a result thereof Sher Singh sat down and later died. The other accused were also armed with lathis. There is also evidence to the effect that there was complete darkness and it was not possible to see who had caused the injuries. PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that when he proceeded from his house to the place of incident, it was dark . PW-4 also admitted in the cross- examination that there was complete darkness and he could identify only some of them.
6. In view of the failure of PW-1 to mention the details of attack by the appellant as against deceased Sher Singh and in view of the fact that the entire incident happened pursuant to a quarrel between two groups of people and that the appellant had no deliberate intention to cause death of Sher Singh, we do not think that an offence under section 302 IPC had been made out against the appellant. The incident was the result of a sudden quarrel between the two groups and in that melee the appellant must have used a lathi which caused injury to Sher Singh which ultimately resulted in his death. In that background it is difficult to hold that the appellant committed the offence of murder. The offence would only come under section 304, part II of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we acquit the appellant of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and find him guilty of offence punishable under section 304 part-II of IPC.
7. We are told that the appellant has been undergoing imprisonment ever since the date of sessions court’s judgement, which was pronounced on 28.9. 1988. Therefore we hold that the sentence already undergone by the appellant is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances of the case, appellant Addha, son of Roop Lal is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal would stand allowed accordingly.
