Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Poonam Chand vs State Of M.P. on 28 April, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, R.K. Agrawal
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).195/2010
POONAM CHAND & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The four appellants herein were tried for an offence under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, M.P. convicted the appellants of the aforesaid offence vide his judgment dated 27.08.2002 and imposed sentence of life imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the accused person. All the four accused persons filed an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.1018 of 2002, which has been dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment.
The four accused persons were Shivshankar, Poonamchand, Banshilal and Ramgopal. The present appeal is filed only by Poonamchand and Banshilal. Insofar as Shivshankar and Ramgopal are concerned, we are informed that after serving the requisite sentence, they were granted remission under the relevant rules in Madhya Pradesh and are, thus, enlarged.
Insofar as the two appellants herein are concerned, it has come on record that they were carrying 'Lathis' i.e. a blunt object Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2016.04.30 and had given Lathi blows on the non-vital parts of the deceased 12:43:09 IST Reason:
person. They are, however, convicted under Section 302 of the IPC taking aid of Section 34 of the IPC as the Trial Court found that 2 there was common intention on the part of all four accused persons to kill the deceased persons namely Parasram and Girdhari. Since the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the courts below have wrongly applied the provisions of Section 34 of the IPC as no common intention was attributed on the part of the appellants and, therefore, we have examined the case only from that angle.
After going through the records and the testimonies of the witnesses, we find force in the aforesaid submission of the learned senior counsel of the appellants and we are of the view that there is no sufficient evidence to rope in the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC on the basis of common intention and it may not be safe to convict them under the aforesaid provision. Having regard to the role played by these two appellants, we convert the conviction from 302 IPC to 304 Part II of the IPC. The two appellants have served the sentence for 11 years 09 months and 13 years 08 months respectively. They have served more than 10 years which is maximum sentence under the said provision. Therefore, these appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
......................11J.
[A.K. SIKRI] ......................J. [R.K.AGRAWAL] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 28, 2016.
3
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 195/2010
POONAM CHAND & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF M.P. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bail and permission to file additional documents and bail and office report) Date : 28/04/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Yasobant Das, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Vikram Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv.
Ms. Deep Shikha Bharati, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mishra Saurabh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Interlocutory application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)