This judgment revolves around the conviction of the appellants under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The case delves into the events surrounding the fatal assault on Jeevan Singh, the deceased, by the appellants, which resulted in his demise.
The origins of this case, Pop Singh & Ors. Appellant(s) versus State of Madhya Pradesh [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1846 OF 2010] trace back to a dispute between the accused persons and Mr. Guman Singh, the father of the deceased, Jeevan Singh, concerning the purchase of land. On April 23, 1997, while Jeevan Singh was en route to a vegetable market in Indore on his scooter, he was ambushed by the appellants armed with various sharp-edged weapons near the house of Ramlal in Village Alwasa. The assailants, armed with an axe, farsa, and dharia, launched a vicious assault on Jeevan Singh, causing him to fall from his scooter. Padam Singh, the uncle of the deceased, witnessed the attack and attempted to intervene but fled to safety when the assailants turned on him.
Eyewitnesses. also observed the incident. Following the assault, the appellants proceeded to Guman Singh’s house and issued threats. Jeevan Singh was subsequently rushed to a hospital in Indore by Peer Mohd. and Rajendra Singh, where he succumbed to his injuries on April 27, 1997.
The case initiated with the lodging of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) by Padam Singh, leading to the arrest of the accused individuals. Initially charged under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 149 (unlawful assembly), the charges were later amended to include Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 of the IPC. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was presented before the competent Judicial Magistrate, subsequently committed to the Sessions Judge for trial.
The learned Sessions Judge ultimately convicted the appellants under Section 148 and Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC read with Section 149, sentencing them accordingly. Upon appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh partly allowed the appeal, affirming the conviction under Section 304 (Part-I) but reducing the sentence. This judgment is the culmination of the appellants’ challenge to the High Court’s decision, seeking further adjudication by the Supreme Court of India.
In the court’s judgment, it was brought forth by Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned senior counsel representing the appellants, that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not inflicted on vital parts of the body but rather on the hands and legs. He argued that this fact indicated an absence of intention or knowledge on the part of the appellants that the injuries would result in death. Consequently, he contended that the case, at most, should fall under Sections 325 or 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to causing grievous hurt. He further advocated that the period already undergone by the appellants, amounting to three years and five months, should suffice as appropriate punishment.
However, Shri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, the learned counsel for the respondent-State, presented a counter argument. He asserted that the High Court had already shown leniency by reducing the sentence from 10 years of rigorous imprisonment to seven years. Ruprah contended that the case should be considered under Section 302 of the IPC, as it involved the appellants waylaying the deceased with deadly weapons due to previous enmity. He emphasized that the deceased had sustained nine injuries, indicating a severe assault, and thus, advocated for dismissal of the appeal.
Upon scrutinizing the evidence presented, the court acknowledged the undisputed occurrence of the incident. From the medical evidence provided by Dr. Saroj Bharani, it was evident that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries, all of which were lacerated wounds. These wounds were described in detail, indicating their severity and location on the body.
The court deliberated on whether the offense should be classified under Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC. While recognizing the presence of multiple injuries, the court noted that all injuries were lacerated wounds caused by the blunt side of the weapons used. This observation led the court to conclude that the appellants did not have the intention to cause death, as they could have used the sharp side of the weapons if such an intention existed.
However, the court determined that the appellants acted with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, based on the nature of the injuries inflicted. Consequently, the court decided to alter the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
As for the appropriate sentence, the court deemed that five years of rigorous imprisonment would serve the ends of justice. Given that the appellants had already served three years and five months, they were ordered to surrender themselves for the remaining sentence within four weeks from the date of the judgment.
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated above and disposed of any pending applications.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
