Kripal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 648-649 of 2000
Petitioner: Kripal Singh
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 648-649 of 2000
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 09, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 386 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 302, 304, part II, 148 and 149 – Alteration in conviction from section 302 IPC to section 304, part II – State not filing appeal – Special leave petition and appeal by son of deceased, also being informant. Held, was maintainable in view of 1980 (3) SCC 141. (Para 4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302/149 or 304, part II/149 – 10 persons assaulting – Medical evidence and testimony of eye-witnesses depicting nature and manner of assault – All of them could be attributed with knowledge that injuries caused by them are likely to result in death. Held that their conviction under section 304 part II with section 149 was proper instead of section 302/149. (Paras 6, 7)
Cases Reffered:
1. PSR Sadhanatham v. Arunachaiam and Anr. ((1980) 3 SCC 141) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The appellant is the son of deceased, Balwant Singh who died in an occurrence, which took place on 10th June 1992. As many as 10 accused-respondents were sent up for trial for the said homicidal death of Balwant Singh. The learned sessions judge vide judgement dated 22nd March, 1994 convicted the accused respondents 2 to 11 for offences under sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. The respondents were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. For an offence under section 148 IPC, all the 10 respondents were awarded one year RI. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concur-rently.
2. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused re-spondents 2 to 11 preferred two appeals in the High Court. Five accused joined in each of the two appeals. By the impugned order and judgement dated 28th July, 1999, the High Court, while hold-ing accused respondents 2 to 11 guilty, found that the offence committed by the accused did not fall under section 302/149 IPC and relying upon medical evidence as well as testimony of the eye witnesses, came to the conclusion that the offence, of which the respondents could be convicted, would squarely fall under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC. Keeping in view the role played by each one of the accused in the occurrence and the weapon with which the accused were armed, the High Court convict-ed Inder Singh, Manohar Singh, Dhan Singh and Ajab Singh for an offence under section 304, part II/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them which by that time was found to be more than 7 years. Their sentence of one year RI for an offence under section 148 IPC was maintained. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.
3. As regards accused Ghisaji, it was found that on the date of the judgement, he was eighty years of age. While maintaining his conviction for an offence under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC, the High Court directed his release on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. So far as remaining accused are concerned, name-ly, Chander Singh, Sajan Singh, Bahadur Singh, Rai Singh and Kalu Singh, who were alleged to be armed only with lathis at the time of occurrence, while maintaining their conviction for an offence under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC, the High Court sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for two years RI each for the said offence. Their conviction and sentence for an offence under section 148 IPC was, however, affirmed. This appeal by special leave calls in question, the acquittal of the respondent nos. 2 to 11 for an offence under section 302/149 IPC.
4. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appell-ant, basing himself on the Constitution bench judgement in PSR Sadhanatham v. Arunachalam and Anr. ((1980) 3 SCC 141), submitted that since the state had not filed an appeal against acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 11 for the offence under section 302/149 IPC, the appellant, who was also an informant and is son of the deceased, was entitled to maintain this appeal by special leave, so as to bring to the notice of this Court that grave miscarriage of justice had occurred by the judgement of the High Court in altering the conviction of respondents 2 to 11 from one under section 302/149 IPC to one under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC. In view of the Constitution bench judgement of this Court (supra), the submission of learned counsel for the appellant to maintain this appeal is not wrong.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Respondent nos. 2 to 11 have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence. The judgement of the High Court correctly analyses the evidence when it upheld the view taken by the trial court that participation of respondent nos. 2 to 11 in the occurrence, resulting in the death of Balwant Singh on the fateful day, is established. Since, there is no appeal against the conviction and sentence filed by the respondents, we need not detain ourselves to consider that aspect of the case at all. We do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court in analysing the evidence. The only issue before us is whether the High Court committed any error in altering the conviction and sentence of respondents 2 to 11 from the one under section 302/149 IPC, as recorded by the trial court, to the one under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC.
7. We have carefully perused the medical evidence and gone through the statement as well as the postmortem report submitted by Dr. Praveen Mishra, PW-9. Keeping in view the medical evi-dence, and the nature and manner of assault on the deceased as emerging from eye witness account, of the three eye witnesses, we are of the view that the High Court was well justified in holding that respondent nos. 2 to 11 could not be held guilty of the offence of murder and that their offence could only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under section 304, part II IPC, because all of them could be attributed with the knowledge that injuries caused by them were likely to result in the death of the injured. The view taken by the High Court is sound and suffers from no error. It is a reasonable view based on proper appreciation of evidence. We find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgement of the High Court.
8. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.
1. The appellant is the son of deceased, Balwant Singh who died in an occurrence, which took place on 10th June 1992. As many as 10 accused-respondents were sent up for trial for the said homicidal death of Balwant Singh. The learned sessions judge vide judgement dated 22nd March, 1994 convicted the accused respondents 2 to 11 for offences under sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. The respondents were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. For an offence under section 148 IPC, all the 10 respondents were awarded one year RI. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concur-rently.
2. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused re-spondents 2 to 11 preferred two appeals in the High Court. Five accused joined in each of the two appeals. By the impugned order and judgement dated 28th July, 1999, the High Court, while hold-ing accused respondents 2 to 11 guilty, found that the offence committed by the accused did not fall under section 302/149 IPC and relying upon medical evidence as well as testimony of the eye witnesses, came to the conclusion that the offence, of which the respondents could be convicted, would squarely fall under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC. Keeping in view the role played by each one of the accused in the occurrence and the weapon with which the accused were armed, the High Court convict-ed Inder Singh, Manohar Singh, Dhan Singh and Ajab Singh for an offence under section 304, part II/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them which by that time was found to be more than 7 years. Their sentence of one year RI for an offence under section 148 IPC was maintained. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.
3. As regards accused Ghisaji, it was found that on the date of the judgement, he was eighty years of age. While maintaining his conviction for an offence under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC, the High Court directed his release on probation of good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour. So far as remaining accused are concerned, name-ly, Chander Singh, Sajan Singh, Bahadur Singh, Rai Singh and Kalu Singh, who were alleged to be armed only with lathis at the time of occurrence, while maintaining their conviction for an offence under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC, the High Court sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for two years RI each for the said offence. Their conviction and sentence for an offence under section 148 IPC was, however, affirmed. This appeal by special leave calls in question, the acquittal of the respondent nos. 2 to 11 for an offence under section 302/149 IPC.
4. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appell-ant, basing himself on the Constitution bench judgement in PSR Sadhanatham v. Arunachalam and Anr. ((1980) 3 SCC 141), submitted that since the state had not filed an appeal against acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 11 for the offence under section 302/149 IPC, the appellant, who was also an informant and is son of the deceased, was entitled to maintain this appeal by special leave, so as to bring to the notice of this Court that grave miscarriage of justice had occurred by the judgement of the High Court in altering the conviction of respondents 2 to 11 from one under section 302/149 IPC to one under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC. In view of the Constitution bench judgement of this Court (supra), the submission of learned counsel for the appellant to maintain this appeal is not wrong.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Respondent nos. 2 to 11 have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence. The judgement of the High Court correctly analyses the evidence when it upheld the view taken by the trial court that participation of respondent nos. 2 to 11 in the occurrence, resulting in the death of Balwant Singh on the fateful day, is established. Since, there is no appeal against the conviction and sentence filed by the respondents, we need not detain ourselves to consider that aspect of the case at all. We do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court in analysing the evidence. The only issue before us is whether the High Court committed any error in altering the conviction and sentence of respondents 2 to 11 from the one under section 302/149 IPC, as recorded by the trial court, to the one under section 304, part II read with section 149 IPC.
7. We have carefully perused the medical evidence and gone through the statement as well as the postmortem report submitted by Dr. Praveen Mishra, PW-9. Keeping in view the medical evi-dence, and the nature and manner of assault on the deceased as emerging from eye witness account, of the three eye witnesses, we are of the view that the High Court was well justified in holding that respondent nos. 2 to 11 could not be held guilty of the offence of murder and that their offence could only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under section 304, part II IPC, because all of them could be attributed with the knowledge that injuries caused by them were likely to result in the death of the injured. The view taken by the High Court is sound and suffers from no error. It is a reasonable view based on proper appreciation of evidence. We find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgement of the High Court.
8. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.
