Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1290-1292 of 1995
PETITIONER:
State of Madhya Pradesh
RESPONDENT:
Harilal
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/12/2002
BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEGDE & ARUN KUMAR.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
The respondents in the above 3 appeals were charged for
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopuri,
M.P. who by his judgment dated 8.9.1983 found the
respondents guilty of the said offence and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior partly allowed the
appeal of the respondents and converted the conviction to one
u/s. 304 (Part II) IPC, and sentenced them to imprisonment for
the period already undergone. It is against this judgment of the
High Court that the State is in appeal before us. In view of the
peculiar facts of these appeals, it may not be necessary for us to
deal in detail with the prosecution case. Suffice it to say that
according to the prosecution the respondents having entertained
certain enmity, attacked one Lachhu with an axe, iron rod and
stones, consequent to which said Lachhu died. It is stated that
Hari Lal, respondent in Crl.A. No.1290 attacked the deceased
with an axe. Respondent in Crl.A. No.1291 Babu attacked with
an iron rod while their mother, respondent in Crl.A. No.1292,
Dukhia attacked the deceased with a stone. Because of the said
attack, it is stated that the deceased suffered 5 injuries out of
which injury No.1 was an incised injury wound, in the left
perietal region, injury No.2 was a wound on the occipital bone,
injury No.3 was a depressed fracture on the left perietal bone
while injury Nos.4 and 5 were bruises on the arm and hip. The
doctor had opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 were grievous and on
post mortem it was found that they were the cause of death. The
prosecution has examined nearly 24 witnesses. Learned
Sessions Judge having discussed the entire evidence on record
had come to the conclusion that the respondents were guilty of
the offence alleged against them and had sentenced them as
stated above, while the High Court has reduced the sentence to
one u/s. 304, Part II, IPC. In these appeals, Mr. Dave, learned
counsel appearing for the State, strongly contended that the
High Court in its judgment had not given any special reasons
for having come to the conclusion that the offence committed
by the appellant was not one punishable u/s. 302 IPC but was
one which is punishable u/s. 304, Part II, IPC. He copiously
pointed out from the judgment of the trial court to substantiate
his argument why the respondents should be held guilty of the
offence u/s. 302 IPC.
While we appreciate the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the High Court was extremely brief while
discussing the evidence against the respondents and had hardly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
given any reason for reducing the sentence from 302 to 304,
Part II, IPC, we should bear in mind the fact that the incident in
question had taken place as far back as on 11.10.1982 and from
the records we find that by the time the High Court delivered its
judgment, all the respondents had served more than 9 years of
RI and even these appeals before us were filed in the year 1995
hence having perused the records, we think at this distance of
time, that too when the respondents have served almost more
than 9 years of imprisonment, we think it not equitable to
entertain the argument of learned counsel for the State to upturn
the judgment of the High Court assuming the same is
erroneous. We think substantial justice has been done.
In the said view of the matter, we dismiss these appeals.