Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 125 of 2000
PETITIONER:
MAJJU & ANR...
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH..
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/10/2001
BENCH:
U.C.Banerjee, K.G.Balakrishna
JUDGMENT:
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
The two appellants herein were tried by the Sessions Judge,
Shajpur in Madhya Pradesh, along with nine others for the various
offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 323, 341 read with
section 149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted three of the
accused and found others guilty of all the offences charged. The
accused who were convicted by the Sessions Court filed an appeal
and the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court,
Bench at Indore, acquitted six of the appellants and found guilty
the present appellants for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and
they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The above
conviction and sentence are challenged before us.
We heard the appellants learned counsel, Mr. Niraj Sharma.
The learned counsel contended that the appellants have been
wrongly convicted as the evidence adduced by the prosecution was
highly interested and that there was a free fight between two
factions and the appellants have not committed any criminal offence.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 20.7.1987 Ayyub
Khan, the third accused before the Sessions Court, used some
abusive words against Ganesh, son of deceased Bihari Lal,
whereby Ganesh felt irritated and slapped Ayyub. People of
the locality then persuaded the parties to compromise the matter
and there was no further incident. But on 24.7.1987 at about
2.00 PM when deceased Bihari Lal and his brother Ramchandra
along with their children were returning after performing some
ceremony at the temple, the appellants and other accused, who
were waiting for them on the way stopped Bihari Lal and others.
Bihari Lal was carrying a gun with him and according to
prosecution, accused Nawab snatched away that gun from
Bihari Lal and thereafter all the accused started beating Bihari Lal.
The accused were carrying Farsi and Sticks. The first appellant
Majju alias Nasir hit deceased Bihari Lal with a Stick and the second
appellant Irshad hit Bihari Lal with a Farsi on the head. Bihari Lal
fell unconscious. He was taken to Shajpur hospital but as his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
condition was serious he was immediately removed to M.Y.
Hospital, Indore, where, while undergoing treatment, he died.
Ramchandra, the brother of the deceased Bihari Lal also had
sustained injuries. According to the prosecution, in the
meanwhile, somebody had informed the police and pursuant
thereto the police came to the place of occurrence and recorded the
statement of Ganesh, son of Bihari Lal. PW-13 took over
the investigation and the dead body of the deceased was sent for
post mortem examination. PW-14, Dr. D.S. Mehta, examined the
deceased and found that he had five incised wounds -- two on
the head, one on the leg and two on arms, and these injuries
were caused by a sharp cutting weapon. PW-8, Dr. Vijay Agrawal,
who conducted the post-mortem, stated that injuries 4 and 5 were
not caused by a cutting weapon but by some blunt weapon. He
opined that death was caused due to head injury.
On the side of the prosecution, four eye-witnesses, namely,
Ganesh [PW-1]; Laxminarayan [PW-2]; Ramchandra [PW-6] and
Subhash [PW-7] were examined. All these witnesses gave
evidence of identical nature with minor contradictions.
The counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution was interested and therefore, it cannot
be relied upon. It is important to note that the witnesses examined
on the side of the prosecution were all injured in the incident. PW-6
Ramachandra sustained a grievous injury, in the sense that he
lost one of his teeth. The other witnesses also sustained injuries.
That is proved by the various medical certificates issued by the
doctor who examined them. Therefore, the presence of these
witnesses at the place of occurrence cannot be suspected. All
these witnesses gave evidence to the effect that when they along
with deceased Bihari Lal were coming from the temple after
performing some ceremony, the accused surrounded and attacked
them. We do not find any infirmity in the evidence of these
witnesses.
The counsel for the appellants contended that the doctor,
who conducted the post mortem examination deposed that there
were no incised injuries as stated earlier by another doctor who first
examined the deceased Bihari Lal. In our opinion, it is not a
serious mistake as there are four eye-witnesses in this case who
deposed that appellants Majju alias Nasir and Irshad were having
Farsi with them and they inflicted cut injuries on Bihari Lal. PW-8
Dr. Vijay Agrawal conducted the post-mortem and described the
injuries in a hap-hazard manner without proper description of the
wounds as to whether these were incised injuries or lacerated
injuries. But the doctor who examined the injured immediately after
the occurrence of the incident, described the nature of injuries and
that is fully in conformity with the oral evidence given by the
witnesses. The Sessions Judge as well as the High Court has rightly
relied on the evidence of the doctor who prepared the wound
certificate of the deceased.
The counsel for the appellants further contended that there was
a free fight between two groups and it is not possible to decide as to
who caused the fatal injuries to the deceased and therefore, the
appellants should have been found guilty of offence under Section
326 IPC alone. It is true that there was an attack by a group of
persons against the deceased and others accompanying him. In
view of some doubts regarding the complicity of some of the
assailants, the Sessions Court as well as the High Court extended
the benefit of doubt to those accused, but as regards the present
appellants, there is strong and consistent evidence to the effect that
they had given the blows by Farsi to the deceased Bihari Lal.
Their acts were described even in the First Information Report and all
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the eye-witnesses deposed that the appellants had caused the
injuries to the deceased Bihari Lal. Therefore, we do not find any
infirmity in the decision rendered by the High Court in finding these
appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed
accordingly.
5