Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jagannath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2018
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, Navin Sinha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 105/2010
JAGANNATH & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. We have heard the learned counsels parties.
2. This appeal by the three convicted accused persons challenges the sentence of life imprisonment which they are presently undergoing for commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short). All the accused persons are in custody for a period of about nine (09) years. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2018.07.27 15:05:32 IST Reason: 2
3. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case hinges on the evidence of Bhanwar Lal (PW-1) who is alleged to have been the eye-witness; the dying declaration recorded by R.D. Patel, ASI (PW-16), the Investigating Officer wherein Dr. R.K. Aggrawal (P.W.7) has certified the deceased to be in a fit condition to make a statement and the fact that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the deceased himself on the date of the incident had gone unchallenged in cross- examination by the accused.
4. In the instant case, the absence of any cross-examination of R.D. Patel, ASI (PW-16), the Investigating Officer who had testified that the deceased had come to the Police Station and had lodged FIR himself would be sufficient to take the view that 3 the incident and the assault attributed to the accused persons is not in dispute.
5. Bhanwar Lal (PW-1), the alleged eye-witness, turned hostile. Insofar as the dying declaration is concerned, though it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are certain inconsistent circumstances surrounding the recording of the said dying declaration, we are not inclined to accept the same. The arguments advanced that the dying declaration contains certain over- writings for which the contents thereof should be disbelieved also has to be repelled by the Court as we have examined the document in question in original. The homicidal death for which the accused appellants have been held responsible, therefore, appears to have been established by the prosecution. Whether the homicide 4 amounts to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is the next question that has to be decided.
6. The report of the post-mortem conducted by Dr. Arjit Arora (PW-17) records the following injuries that were found on the body of the deceased.
(i) Lacerated wound on left leg, vertical, 6 cm below knee. Lacerated wound on left leg inner side, below knee 11 x 2 cm with subcutaneous tissue and muscles exposed.
(ii) A lacerated wound on left leg, external side, 6 cm below knee, size of 13 x 3 cm with subcutaneous tissue and muscles exposed.
(iii) Surgical stitched wound on right arm, 5 cm long, exposed back and outer side fracture underneath of phimraous bone and from above candile.
(iv) Contusion on left hand stitched by surgery in the contusion part and ring was inserted.” 5
7. The injuries, though very grievous, are not either individually or collectively, capable of causing death by itself. Coupled with the above we have the opinion of the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem i.e. Dr. Arjit Arora (P.W.-17] that in the instant case death was on account of cardio-respiratory failure as a result of complications arising out of the injuries that the deceased had suffered at the hands of the accused appellants. The death incidentally had occurred 13 (thirteen) days after the incident.
8. On the materials indicated above, we unhesitatingly take the view that the accused appellants cannot be attributed with the intention to cause death of Mishri Lal by the injuries caused by them on the deceased.
6
9. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the surrounding facts we are of the view that the present would be a fit case where conviction under Section 302/34 IPC ought to be altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. We order accordingly and direct that the sentence of life imprisonment should be modified to one of the period undergone. The accused be set at liberty forthwith.
10. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(R. BANUMATHI) ...................,J.
(NAVIN SINHA)
NEW DELHI
JULY 26, 2018
7
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-A
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). 105/2010
JAGANNATH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 26-07-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Mrs. June Chaudhari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR Ms. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Gagan Narang, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the surrounding facts we are of the view that the present would be a fit case where conviction under Section 302/34 IPC ought to be altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. We order accordingly and direct that the sentence of life imprisonment should be modified to one of the period undergone. The accused be set at liberty forthwith.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]