Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 377
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1254 OF 2024
State of Madhya Pradesh … Appellant
versus
Shyamlal & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State
Government. The respondents were tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court held the respondents
accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the
respondents for the offences punishable under Section
147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with
Section 149 of the IPC. For the offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, they were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. For other
Date: 2025.03.20
19:39:48 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 1 of 16
offences, separate punishments were imposed, which were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Respondents preferred an appeal before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By the impugned
th
judgment dated 24 August 2017, the High Court
proceeded to set aside the conviction of the respondents
for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court converted the
conviction under Section 302 into the second part of
Section 304 of the IPC. The conviction for the other
offences was confirmed. The High Court noted that the
incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent,
Shyamlal, was nearly eighty years old, and four other
respondents were also above the age of seventy. The
respondents were let off by the High Court with the
sentence already undergone. A fine of Rs.16,000/-
(Rupees sixteen thousand) each was imposed on the
respondents out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
one lakh) was ordered to be paid to the family of the
deceased and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand) each to PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and PW-2
(Ramadhar).
st
3. The incident is of 1 November 1989 which happened
at about 4 pm. It is alleged that the respondents, with a
common intention and object, got together and assaulted
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 2 of 16
PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar), PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11
(Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev), and the deceased-
Laxman. It is alleged that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo
belonging to the respondents. According to the
prosecution's case, the respondents first attacked PW-1,
PW-3, and PW-11 while they were working in the field.
Thereafter, PW-1 ran away. The respondents chased him
and dragged PW-2, PW-12, and the deceased-Laxman out
of their houses and assaulted them.
4. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 suffered simple injuries. In
the case of PW-2 (Ramadhar), the assault by the
respondents resulted in the fracture of the ulna bone of
the right hand. As regards the PW-12 (Chiranjeev), as a
result of injuries inflicted by the respondents, he suffered
a fracture of the radius and ulna bones of the left hand.
The deceased-Laxman was initially examined by the
nd
doctors and was discharged after treatment. But, on 2
November 1989, he complained of vomiting, headache,
and dizziness. He was admitted to the district hospital
th
Chhatarpur and was discharged on 15 November 1989.
th
While returning home from the hospital on 15 November
1989, his condition deteriorated, and he complained of
severe headache. He was admitted to the Chandla
Hospital, where he died on the same night. It is the case
of the prosecution that the respondent nos. 3 and 4
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 3 of 16
(accused nos. 3 and 5, respectively) had ballams, and the
remaining accused had sticks in their hands. The
prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, including the
injured eyewitnesses.
SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
State pointed out that even assuming that the offence
under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was made
out, the respondents were let off with undergone sentence
of only seventy-six days. He submitted that conversion of
the offence punishable under Section 302 into an offence
under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was not
justified. Only because there was a time gap of fifteen days
from the date of assault to the date of death of the
deceased, it cannot be said that the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC was not proved. The learned
counsel submitted that the attack by the respondents was
so brutal that the cumulative number of injuries inflicted
by them on the eyewitnesses and the deceased was more
than thirty-five, which were grievous in nature. He pointed
out that the evidence of PW-17 Dr Baburam Arya, who
examined the deceased shows that serious injuries were
caused to the occipital bone of the deceased-Laxman.
According to the post-mortem notes, the deceased suffered
internal injuries on account of a blow delivered by the
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 4 of 16
respondents. The learned counsel submitted that there
was intention and knowledge on the respondents' part;
hence, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC ought to
have been confirmed.
6. The learned counsel submitted that it is well settled
that one of the prime objectives of the criminal law is to
impose adequate, just and proportionate punishment
commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime
and the manner in which the offence was committed. In
any event, punishment should not be so lenient that it
shocks the conscience of the Court. He relied upon a
decision of this Court in the case of Ahmed Hussein Vali
1
Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and in
particular, paragraph 99, which reads thus:
“99. Finally, one more argument was
advanced about the award of sentence
to Liyakat Hussein alias Master
Khudabax Shaikh (A-1). The object of
awarding appropriate sentence should
be to protect the society and to deter the
criminal from achieving the avowed
object to ( sic break the) law by imposing
appropriate sentence. It is expected that
the courts would operate the sentencing
system so as to impose such sentence
which reflects the conscience of the
society and the sentencing process has
to be stern where it should be. Any
liberal attitude by imposing meagre
1
(2009) 7 SCC 254
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 5 of 16
sentences or taking too sympathetic
view merely on account of lapse of time
in respect of such offences will be
resultwise counterproductive in the
long run and against the interest of
society which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence
inbuilt in the sentencing system. ”
The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the
impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained.
7. The learned counsel appointed to espouse the
respondents' cause invited our attention to the findings
recorded by the High Court and, in particular, what is held
in paragraph 16. She pointed out that PW-17 (Dr
Baburam Arya) had submitted a report stating that the
deceased-Laxman had suffered simple injuries.
8. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the
cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem notes. It
records that the deceased-Laxman died on account of
asphyxia and that the cause of death was not discernible.
Moreover, there was no evidence of internal damage to any
of the organs. No chemical or poison was detected in
viscera sent for chemical examination. The High Court,
therefore, concluded that the injuries inflicted by the
respondents on the deceased were simple in nature, and
there was no intention to commit murder. The learned
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 6 of 16
counsel submitted that since the incident was of the year
1989 and since all the accused were 70 to 80 years old,
the High Court imposed the punishment to the extent
already undergone. She submitted that, after all, this
Court was dealing with the incident that took place thirty-
six years ago.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
9. We have perused the notes of evidence of material
prosecution witnesses, especially the injured ones.
Initially, there were eight accused. Accused no.4 died
during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
As stated earlier, the case of the prosecution is that the
accused, with a common intention and object, came
together and assaulted PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar),
PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev)
st
and the deceased, on 1 November 1989 at about 4 pm.
The accused were under the impression that PW-1 had cut
the tail of a buffalo belonging to the respondents-accused.
The case of the prosecution is that, initially, the
respondents-accused attacked PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11
when they were working in the field. When PW-1 tried to
run away, the respondents-accused dragged PW-2
(Ramadhar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and the deceased-
Laxman out of their houses and again assaulted them.
PW-3 (Haripal) and PW-11 (Jageshwar) sustained simple
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 7 of 16
injuries. On the other hand, the injuries suffered by PW-
2 and PW-12 were grievous injuries which resulted in
fractures.
10. As stated earlier, the conviction of the respondents-
accused has been brought down from Section 302 to
second part of Section 304 of the IPC. The High Court has
st
noted that the incident was of 1 November 1989. The
th
Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused on 25
April 1994. The appeal against conviction remained
pending for twenty-one years. It is pointed out that the
respondents were on bail during the trial and the appeal.
That is one circumstance taken into consideration by the
High Court. The other circumstance considered is that
when the High Court dealt with the appeal, the incident
was twenty-eight years old. Four accused were
approximately seventy years of age, and one was nearly
eighty years of age, and that is the reason why the
respondents have been let off on the sentence undergone
by the High court, and a fine was imposed. While imposing
the fine, the High Court relied upon a decision of this Court
2
in the case of Fatta & Ors. v. State of U. P. . The
judgment, which consists of only two paragraphs, reads
thus:
“ In this appeal by special leave, the
learned counsel for the appellant has
2
(1979) SCC (crl) 629
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 8 of 16
pressed the appeal only on the question
of the applicability of Section 302 read
with Section 149 IPC to the appellants
other than Ramakant Rai. It was urged
that according to the findings of the
Court below, the occurrence took place
in the disputed field which was claimed
by both the parties. According to the
prosecution case, the field in question
was in the possession of the deceased
Janardan and PW 1 and they had sown
Arhar crop and had come to harvest the
same. At that time the accused in a
body arrived at the scene variously
armed, with a view to dispossess the
prosecution party by force. There was
exchange of brickbats and ultimately
one of the accused Ram Sewak who was
armed with a gun, fired a shot which hit
the right eye of Janardan as a result of
which he fell down and died
instantaneously. The appellant
Ramakant Rai is said to have provided
a cartridge to Ram Sewak before he fired
the gun. In these circumstances,
therefore, the conclusion is inescapable
that Ram Sewak and Ramakant Rai had
undoubtedly the common intention to
cause murder of the deceased. As
regards others, on the materials, we are
satisfied that the occurrence took place
over the possession of land claimed by
both the parties. Apart from Ramakant
Rai and Ram Sevak no other person of
the Assembly took part in the assault on
the deceased. Although some of the
appellants were armed with pharsa and
spear and one of the appellants with a
pistol, but none of these weapons were
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 9 of 16
used. In the circumstances of the
present case, there can be no doubt that
the appellants had gone armed in order
to dispossess the prosecution party and
cause such injury as may be necessary
for achieving that object. But the
evidence does not show that all the
appellants shared the common object of
committing the murder of Janardan. It
is true that the mere fact that no overt
act has been attributed to the members
of the unlawful assembly, is not
sufficient to disprove the charge under
Section 149 IPC. But this question
depends on the facts of each case. In the
instant case, we are satisfied that at the
most the appellants other than Ram
Sewak and Ramakant Rai had merely
the intention to cause an offence under
Section 325 IPC and were, therefore,
guilty of offence under Section 325/149
as also of rioting. The other question
that has to be determined is as to
what sentence should be awarded to
the appellants. The appellants have
served only 3 to 4 months and have
been on bail throughout. It would not
be conducive in the interest of justice
to send them back to jail after a lapse
of 10 years. On the other hand, if the
family of the deceased is heavily
compensated, that will serve the
socio-economic purpose which the
modern trend of the policy of
sentencing required. For these
reasons, therefore, we alter the
conviction of the appellants except
Ramakant Rai from one under
Section 302/149 to Section 325/149
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 10 of 16
and reduce the sentence to the
period already served. In lieu of
sentence remitted, we impose a fine
of Rs 5000 on each of the appellants
in default to two years' RI. The entire
fine, if realised, shall be paid to PW 1,
the widow of Janardan. The sentence
under Section 147 is also reduced to
the period already undergone.
2. As regards Ramakant Rai, there is
evidence of the eyewitnesses that he
was the person who supplied cartridge
to Ram Sewak in order to shoot
Janardan. In these circumstances,
Ramakant Rai is convicted under
Section 302/34 and his sentence of life
imprisonment is upheld under this
section. With this modification, the
appeal is dismissed. Fine to be paid in
six months. After the fine is paid, the
appellants shall be discharged from bail
bonds. ”
(emphasis added)
11. We have examined the evidence. We have perused
the post-mortem notes of the deceased. PW-17 (Dr
Baburam Arya) was working as an Assistant Surgeon in
nd
the hospital at Chandla at the relevant time. On 2
November 1989, the injured witnesses, as well as the
deceased Laxman, were brought before him for medical
examination. As stated by him, the deceased-Laxman
suffered the following injuries:
“
Laxman had the following injuries on
his body:-
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 11 of 16
1. Lacerated wound 4×.5×.5 cm, was on
the back side of the middle of the
skull.
2. Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the
left elbow.
3. Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the
upper one/third part of the first
forearm.
4. Swelling 5 cm in circumference in the
right forearm.
5. Lacerated wound 2×.2 cm in the
middle of the left foot. The patient
complained of pain in the injury
about. Later on said that it was not
lacerated wound, it was just a
scratch.
6. Lacerated wound, 3×.5×.5 cm, in a
horizontal shape on the right
eyebrow.
7. Lacerated wound 2.5×.3 cm to the
depth of the skin, in line with the
nose.
8. Lacerated wound 3×.3 cm on the
right side of the nose to the depth of
skin.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ”
12. His evidence makes it clear that the deceased was not
admitted to the hospital on the date of the incident. He
nd
stated that at 6 pm on 2 November 1989, the deceased
came to him and complained of nausea and vomiting
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 12 of 16
sensation as well as headache. He stated that there was
swelling on the right side of his face and the right side of
his nose. After treatment, he was referred to the district
hospital at Chattarpur for further treatment. It appears
th
that he died in the night of 15 November 1989. In
paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the High Court
observed that the deceased was treated in the district
hospital for twelve days and was discharged. While
returning home along with PW-4, he again complained of
a headache and was, therefore, admitted to the hospital at
th
Chandla, where he died on 15 November 1989. Thus, the
death was fifteen days after the incident. The post-mortem
report records that the cause of death was asphyxia, but
the exact cause of death could not be ascertained.
Therefore, viscera was sent for chemical examination. The
th
report of the State Forensic Laboratory dated 27 January
1990 records that any chemical or poison was not present
in the viscera of lungs, liver, spleen, kidney, brain, heart,
stomach, and intestine of the deceased-Laxman. That
rules out the possibility of poisoning. What is important
here is what PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) stated in his
examination-in-chief. In paragraph 18, he stated:
“18. All the injuries were before death.
Laxman had died due to suffocation.
It was difficult to give a definite
reason . ”
(emphasis added)
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 13 of 16
Therefore, neither the cause of death mentioned in the
post-mortem report nor the evidence of PW-17 prove that
the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his
death. Moreover, the death occurred 15 days after the
incident.
13. We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal
preferred by the accused. But the fact remains that the
medical evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether
injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the
death of Laxman. Therefore, there is a serious doubt
whether even Section 304 of the IPC could have been
applied, as the medical opinion does not support the
theory of homicidal death of the deceased. That is why it
is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court directing that the respondents-accused should be
let off for the offence under Section 304, read with Section
149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has been undergone.
As noted earlier, when the High Court decided the appeal
in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years old.
When we are deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising
out of a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the
incident is almost thirty-six years old.
14. When the judgment of the High Court was delivered,
at least five accused were above seventy years of age, and
one of them was of the age of about eighty years. A
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 14 of 16
substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed
by the High Court by way of fine. Therefore, it will not be
appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of the
High Court.
POST SCRIPT
15. In all the major High Courts in our country, there is
a huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction
and acquittal. Considering the pendency of very old
criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of
the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals
against conviction where the accused are on bail take a
backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by
taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals
against conviction where accused are on bail. The old age
of the accused and the long lapse of time from the
commission of the offence can always be a ground
available to give some priority to the appeals against
conviction of the accused on bail. If the appeals against
conviction where the accused are on bail and especially
where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a
decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed,
the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after
a long period of more than a decade. Therefore, it is
desirable that certain categories of appeals against
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 15 of 16
conviction where the accused are on bail should be given
priority.
16. The appeal is dismissed.
.…………………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…………………………….J.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
…………………………….J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi;
March 20, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 16 of 16
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1254 OF 2024
State of Madhya Pradesh … Appellant
versus
Shyamlal & Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The present appeal is preferred by the State
Government. The respondents were tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, ‘the IPC’). The Trial Court held the respondents
accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the
respondents for the offences punishable under Section
147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with
Section 149 of the IPC. For the offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, they were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. For other
Date: 2025.03.20
19:39:48 IST
Reason:
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 1 of 16
offences, separate punishments were imposed, which were
ordered to run concurrently.
2. Respondents preferred an appeal before the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By the impugned
th
judgment dated 24 August 2017, the High Court
proceeded to set aside the conviction of the respondents
for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the IPC. The High Court converted the
conviction under Section 302 into the second part of
Section 304 of the IPC. The conviction for the other
offences was confirmed. The High Court noted that the
incident was of the year 1989. The first respondent,
Shyamlal, was nearly eighty years old, and four other
respondents were also above the age of seventy. The
respondents were let off by the High Court with the
sentence already undergone. A fine of Rs.16,000/-
(Rupees sixteen thousand) each was imposed on the
respondents out of which, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
one lakh) was ordered to be paid to the family of the
deceased and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand) each to PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and PW-2
(Ramadhar).
st
3. The incident is of 1 November 1989 which happened
at about 4 pm. It is alleged that the respondents, with a
common intention and object, got together and assaulted
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 2 of 16
PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar), PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11
(Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev), and the deceased-
Laxman. It is alleged that PW-1 had cut the tail of a buffalo
belonging to the respondents. According to the
prosecution's case, the respondents first attacked PW-1,
PW-3, and PW-11 while they were working in the field.
Thereafter, PW-1 ran away. The respondents chased him
and dragged PW-2, PW-12, and the deceased-Laxman out
of their houses and assaulted them.
4. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11 suffered simple injuries. In
the case of PW-2 (Ramadhar), the assault by the
respondents resulted in the fracture of the ulna bone of
the right hand. As regards the PW-12 (Chiranjeev), as a
result of injuries inflicted by the respondents, he suffered
a fracture of the radius and ulna bones of the left hand.
The deceased-Laxman was initially examined by the
nd
doctors and was discharged after treatment. But, on 2
November 1989, he complained of vomiting, headache,
and dizziness. He was admitted to the district hospital
th
Chhatarpur and was discharged on 15 November 1989.
th
While returning home from the hospital on 15 November
1989, his condition deteriorated, and he complained of
severe headache. He was admitted to the Chandla
Hospital, where he died on the same night. It is the case
of the prosecution that the respondent nos. 3 and 4
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 3 of 16
(accused nos. 3 and 5, respectively) had ballams, and the
remaining accused had sticks in their hands. The
prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, including the
injured eyewitnesses.
SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
State pointed out that even assuming that the offence
under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was made
out, the respondents were let off with undergone sentence
of only seventy-six days. He submitted that conversion of
the offence punishable under Section 302 into an offence
under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC was not
justified. Only because there was a time gap of fifteen days
from the date of assault to the date of death of the
deceased, it cannot be said that the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC was not proved. The learned
counsel submitted that the attack by the respondents was
so brutal that the cumulative number of injuries inflicted
by them on the eyewitnesses and the deceased was more
than thirty-five, which were grievous in nature. He pointed
out that the evidence of PW-17 Dr Baburam Arya, who
examined the deceased shows that serious injuries were
caused to the occipital bone of the deceased-Laxman.
According to the post-mortem notes, the deceased suffered
internal injuries on account of a blow delivered by the
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 4 of 16
respondents. The learned counsel submitted that there
was intention and knowledge on the respondents' part;
hence, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC ought to
have been confirmed.
6. The learned counsel submitted that it is well settled
that one of the prime objectives of the criminal law is to
impose adequate, just and proportionate punishment
commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime
and the manner in which the offence was committed. In
any event, punishment should not be so lenient that it
shocks the conscience of the Court. He relied upon a
decision of this Court in the case of Ahmed Hussein Vali
1
Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and in
particular, paragraph 99, which reads thus:
“99. Finally, one more argument was
advanced about the award of sentence
to Liyakat Hussein alias Master
Khudabax Shaikh (A-1). The object of
awarding appropriate sentence should
be to protect the society and to deter the
criminal from achieving the avowed
object to ( sic break the) law by imposing
appropriate sentence. It is expected that
the courts would operate the sentencing
system so as to impose such sentence
which reflects the conscience of the
society and the sentencing process has
to be stern where it should be. Any
liberal attitude by imposing meagre
1
(2009) 7 SCC 254
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 5 of 16
sentences or taking too sympathetic
view merely on account of lapse of time
in respect of such offences will be
resultwise counterproductive in the
long run and against the interest of
society which needs to be cared for and
strengthened by string of deterrence
inbuilt in the sentencing system. ”
The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the
impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained.
7. The learned counsel appointed to espouse the
respondents' cause invited our attention to the findings
recorded by the High Court and, in particular, what is held
in paragraph 16. She pointed out that PW-17 (Dr
Baburam Arya) had submitted a report stating that the
deceased-Laxman had suffered simple injuries.
8. The learned counsel also invited our attention to the
cause of death mentioned in the post-mortem notes. It
records that the deceased-Laxman died on account of
asphyxia and that the cause of death was not discernible.
Moreover, there was no evidence of internal damage to any
of the organs. No chemical or poison was detected in
viscera sent for chemical examination. The High Court,
therefore, concluded that the injuries inflicted by the
respondents on the deceased were simple in nature, and
there was no intention to commit murder. The learned
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 6 of 16
counsel submitted that since the incident was of the year
1989 and since all the accused were 70 to 80 years old,
the High Court imposed the punishment to the extent
already undergone. She submitted that, after all, this
Court was dealing with the incident that took place thirty-
six years ago.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
9. We have perused the notes of evidence of material
prosecution witnesses, especially the injured ones.
Initially, there were eight accused. Accused no.4 died
during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
As stated earlier, the case of the prosecution is that the
accused, with a common intention and object, came
together and assaulted PW-1 (Siroman), PW-2 (Ramadhar),
PW-3 (Haripal), PW-11 (Jageshwar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev)
st
and the deceased, on 1 November 1989 at about 4 pm.
The accused were under the impression that PW-1 had cut
the tail of a buffalo belonging to the respondents-accused.
The case of the prosecution is that, initially, the
respondents-accused attacked PW-1, PW-3 and PW-11
when they were working in the field. When PW-1 tried to
run away, the respondents-accused dragged PW-2
(Ramadhar), PW-12 (Chiranjeev) and the deceased-
Laxman out of their houses and again assaulted them.
PW-3 (Haripal) and PW-11 (Jageshwar) sustained simple
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 7 of 16
injuries. On the other hand, the injuries suffered by PW-
2 and PW-12 were grievous injuries which resulted in
fractures.
10. As stated earlier, the conviction of the respondents-
accused has been brought down from Section 302 to
second part of Section 304 of the IPC. The High Court has
st
noted that the incident was of 1 November 1989. The
th
Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused on 25
April 1994. The appeal against conviction remained
pending for twenty-one years. It is pointed out that the
respondents were on bail during the trial and the appeal.
That is one circumstance taken into consideration by the
High Court. The other circumstance considered is that
when the High Court dealt with the appeal, the incident
was twenty-eight years old. Four accused were
approximately seventy years of age, and one was nearly
eighty years of age, and that is the reason why the
respondents have been let off on the sentence undergone
by the High court, and a fine was imposed. While imposing
the fine, the High Court relied upon a decision of this Court
2
in the case of Fatta & Ors. v. State of U. P. . The
judgment, which consists of only two paragraphs, reads
thus:
“ In this appeal by special leave, the
learned counsel for the appellant has
2
(1979) SCC (crl) 629
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 8 of 16
pressed the appeal only on the question
of the applicability of Section 302 read
with Section 149 IPC to the appellants
other than Ramakant Rai. It was urged
that according to the findings of the
Court below, the occurrence took place
in the disputed field which was claimed
by both the parties. According to the
prosecution case, the field in question
was in the possession of the deceased
Janardan and PW 1 and they had sown
Arhar crop and had come to harvest the
same. At that time the accused in a
body arrived at the scene variously
armed, with a view to dispossess the
prosecution party by force. There was
exchange of brickbats and ultimately
one of the accused Ram Sewak who was
armed with a gun, fired a shot which hit
the right eye of Janardan as a result of
which he fell down and died
instantaneously. The appellant
Ramakant Rai is said to have provided
a cartridge to Ram Sewak before he fired
the gun. In these circumstances,
therefore, the conclusion is inescapable
that Ram Sewak and Ramakant Rai had
undoubtedly the common intention to
cause murder of the deceased. As
regards others, on the materials, we are
satisfied that the occurrence took place
over the possession of land claimed by
both the parties. Apart from Ramakant
Rai and Ram Sevak no other person of
the Assembly took part in the assault on
the deceased. Although some of the
appellants were armed with pharsa and
spear and one of the appellants with a
pistol, but none of these weapons were
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 9 of 16
used. In the circumstances of the
present case, there can be no doubt that
the appellants had gone armed in order
to dispossess the prosecution party and
cause such injury as may be necessary
for achieving that object. But the
evidence does not show that all the
appellants shared the common object of
committing the murder of Janardan. It
is true that the mere fact that no overt
act has been attributed to the members
of the unlawful assembly, is not
sufficient to disprove the charge under
Section 149 IPC. But this question
depends on the facts of each case. In the
instant case, we are satisfied that at the
most the appellants other than Ram
Sewak and Ramakant Rai had merely
the intention to cause an offence under
Section 325 IPC and were, therefore,
guilty of offence under Section 325/149
as also of rioting. The other question
that has to be determined is as to
what sentence should be awarded to
the appellants. The appellants have
served only 3 to 4 months and have
been on bail throughout. It would not
be conducive in the interest of justice
to send them back to jail after a lapse
of 10 years. On the other hand, if the
family of the deceased is heavily
compensated, that will serve the
socio-economic purpose which the
modern trend of the policy of
sentencing required. For these
reasons, therefore, we alter the
conviction of the appellants except
Ramakant Rai from one under
Section 302/149 to Section 325/149
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 10 of 16
and reduce the sentence to the
period already served. In lieu of
sentence remitted, we impose a fine
of Rs 5000 on each of the appellants
in default to two years' RI. The entire
fine, if realised, shall be paid to PW 1,
the widow of Janardan. The sentence
under Section 147 is also reduced to
the period already undergone.
2. As regards Ramakant Rai, there is
evidence of the eyewitnesses that he
was the person who supplied cartridge
to Ram Sewak in order to shoot
Janardan. In these circumstances,
Ramakant Rai is convicted under
Section 302/34 and his sentence of life
imprisonment is upheld under this
section. With this modification, the
appeal is dismissed. Fine to be paid in
six months. After the fine is paid, the
appellants shall be discharged from bail
bonds. ”
(emphasis added)
11. We have examined the evidence. We have perused
the post-mortem notes of the deceased. PW-17 (Dr
Baburam Arya) was working as an Assistant Surgeon in
nd
the hospital at Chandla at the relevant time. On 2
November 1989, the injured witnesses, as well as the
deceased Laxman, were brought before him for medical
examination. As stated by him, the deceased-Laxman
suffered the following injuries:
“
Laxman had the following injuries on
his body:-
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 11 of 16
1. Lacerated wound 4×.5×.5 cm, was on
the back side of the middle of the
skull.
2. Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the
left elbow.
3. Lacerated wound 2×.5×.5 cm, on the
upper one/third part of the first
forearm.
4. Swelling 5 cm in circumference in the
right forearm.
5. Lacerated wound 2×.2 cm in the
middle of the left foot. The patient
complained of pain in the injury
about. Later on said that it was not
lacerated wound, it was just a
scratch.
6. Lacerated wound, 3×.5×.5 cm, in a
horizontal shape on the right
eyebrow.
7. Lacerated wound 2.5×.3 cm to the
depth of the skin, in line with the
nose.
8. Lacerated wound 3×.3 cm on the
right side of the nose to the depth of
skin.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ”
12. His evidence makes it clear that the deceased was not
admitted to the hospital on the date of the incident. He
nd
stated that at 6 pm on 2 November 1989, the deceased
came to him and complained of nausea and vomiting
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 12 of 16
sensation as well as headache. He stated that there was
swelling on the right side of his face and the right side of
his nose. After treatment, he was referred to the district
hospital at Chattarpur for further treatment. It appears
th
that he died in the night of 15 November 1989. In
paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the High Court
observed that the deceased was treated in the district
hospital for twelve days and was discharged. While
returning home along with PW-4, he again complained of
a headache and was, therefore, admitted to the hospital at
th
Chandla, where he died on 15 November 1989. Thus, the
death was fifteen days after the incident. The post-mortem
report records that the cause of death was asphyxia, but
the exact cause of death could not be ascertained.
Therefore, viscera was sent for chemical examination. The
th
report of the State Forensic Laboratory dated 27 January
1990 records that any chemical or poison was not present
in the viscera of lungs, liver, spleen, kidney, brain, heart,
stomach, and intestine of the deceased-Laxman. That
rules out the possibility of poisoning. What is important
here is what PW-17 (Dr Baburam Arya) stated in his
examination-in-chief. In paragraph 18, he stated:
“18. All the injuries were before death.
Laxman had died due to suffocation.
It was difficult to give a definite
reason . ”
(emphasis added)
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 13 of 16
Therefore, neither the cause of death mentioned in the
post-mortem report nor the evidence of PW-17 prove that
the injuries inflicted upon the deceased resulted in his
death. Moreover, the death occurred 15 days after the
incident.
13. We are conscious of the fact that there is no appeal
preferred by the accused. But the fact remains that the
medical evidence creates a serious doubt as to whether
injuries allegedly inflicted by the respondents caused the
death of Laxman. Therefore, there is a serious doubt
whether even Section 304 of the IPC could have been
applied, as the medical opinion does not support the
theory of homicidal death of the deceased. That is why it
is not possible to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court directing that the respondents-accused should be
let off for the offence under Section 304, read with Section
149 of the IPC, on the sentence that has been undergone.
As noted earlier, when the High Court decided the appeal
in 2017, the incident was already twenty-eight years old.
When we are deciding this appeal of the year 2024 (arising
out of a special leave petition of the year of 2018), the
incident is almost thirty-six years old.
14. When the judgment of the High Court was delivered,
at least five accused were above seventy years of age, and
one of them was of the age of about eighty years. A
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 14 of 16
substantial amount of Rs.16,000/- each has been imposed
by the High Court by way of fine. Therefore, it will not be
appropriate to interfere with the impugned judgment of the
High Court.
POST SCRIPT
15. In all the major High Courts in our country, there is
a huge pendency of criminal appeals against conviction
and acquittal. Considering the pendency of very old
criminal appeals, priority is usually given to the hearing of
the appeals where the accused are in prison. The appeals
against conviction where the accused are on bail take a
backseat. However, a right balance has to be struck by
taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals
against conviction where accused are on bail. The old age
of the accused and the long lapse of time from the
commission of the offence can always be a ground
available to give some priority to the appeals against
conviction of the accused on bail. If the appeals against
conviction where the accused are on bail and especially
where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a
decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed,
the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after
a long period of more than a decade. Therefore, it is
desirable that certain categories of appeals against
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 15 of 16
conviction where the accused are on bail should be given
priority.
16. The appeal is dismissed.
.…………………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…………………………….J.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
…………………………….J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi;
March 20, 2025.
Criminal Appeal No.1254 of 2024 Page 16 of 16