NARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGAR Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Bench: SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,H.L. GOKHALE
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000159-000159 / 2008
Diary number: 1161 / 2008
Advocates: SUDHANSHU S. CHOUDHARI Vs
ASHA GOPALAN NAIR
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.159 OF 2008
NARAYAN MANIKRAO SALGAR ..APPELLANT VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.803-804 OF 2008
RAMRAO MHALBA SALGAR & ORS. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 297-298 OF 2008
KESHAV MANIKRAO SALGAR & ANR. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
1
Page 2
J U D G M E N T
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. By this common judgment, we propose to decide
criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos.159 of
2008, 803-804 of 2008 and 297-298 of 2008. For
the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken
from Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2008. All the
appellants have been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with
Sections 149, 341 read with Section 149, 323 read
with Section 149 and sentenced to S.I. for one year,
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-. It has
also been directed that, in default, they shall
undergo further S.I. for six months, in the event of
non payment of fine, S.I. for one month and S.I. for
one month respectively with a direction that all the
substantive sentences would run concurrently. The
aforesaid conviction and sentences have been
recorded in the judgment of First Adhoc Additional
2
Page 3
Sessions Judge, Parbhani dated 20th August, 2005,
in Sessions Trial No.180 of 1998. Separate appeals
filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the
High Court. The conviction and sentence recorded
by the Sessions Court have been confirmed. The
High Court also noticed that the original accused
No.2 Manikrao and original accused No.10 Maroti
had died during the pendency of the proceedings.
Therefore, the appeal filed by them had abated.
2. We may now briefly notice the facts recorded by the
High Court.
3. PW 9, P.S.I Mallikarjun Ingale, who was attached to
Tadkalas Police Station as a P.S.I. was informed by
PW 1 Sharda about an incident in which her
husband had been viciously attacked by about 10 to
11 persons at about 6.30 pm on 9th March, 1998.
He was told that PW 1 alongwith her infant son
was riding on a motor cycle with her husband
Khushal from Tadkalas to Phulkalas. The motor
cycle was intercepted by accused No.2 Manikrao on
3
Page 4
the road from Tadkalas to Phulkalas near the farm
house of Salgar. PW 1 informed PW 9 that her
husband was lying in an injured condition near the
farmhouse of the assailants. On receipt of this
information, PW 9 P.S.I. Ingale went to the scene of
the offence alongwith some other police staff. PW 1
Sharda also accompanied the police party in a
police jeep. The Police party headed by PW 9
alongwith PW1 and Jiwanaji PW7 on reaching the
scene of crime noticed that Khushal was lying in a
pool of blood in a very seriously injured condition.
Khushal was taken to the Government Hospital at
Tadkalas in a police jeep. However, as the medical
officer was not available at the Hospital, the injured
was sent to the hospital at Parbhani accompanied
by one Head Constable and Constable in a police
jeep. PW 9 recorded two entries in the station diary
in this respect and thereafter went to General
Hospital at Parbhani. By the time he arrived, the
injured Khushal had already been admitted in the
4
Page 5
hospital. On enquiry PW 8 Mukashe informed the
police that Khushal was in a fit condition to give his
statement. The statement was duly recorded in the
presence of the medical officer Dr.Mukashe, PW 8.
4. In his statement, Khushal stated that while he was
going on the motor cycle to Tadkalas for buying
some household goods, about 10 to 11 persons
assaulted him near the farmhouse of Salgar. He
stated that the cause of the assault was an
altercation of accused No.2 on the previous day
when accused No.2 had diverted the water which
was meant for the land of Khushal to his own land.
Khushal had in his statement named all the
assailants. On the same night, at about 12.00-
12.15 a.m., Khushal succumbed to the injuries and
died. The statement given by Khushal has,
therefore, been treated as a dying declaration. It
was produced as Exh.94 at the trial. The High Court
notices that the clothes of the deceased were seized
vide memo at Exh.72 in the presence of PW 4
5
Page 6
Hanumant. On his return to the Police Station, PW
9 registered the offence on the basis of statement
made by Khushal vide crime No.14 of 1998 under
Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 504 of
IPC at 11.30 p.m. On receiving information about
12.15 a.m. on 10th March, 1998 that injured
Khushal had died, the offence under Section 302
IPC was also added. Panchnama at the scene of
offence was duly drawn in the presence of panchas
at Exh.76. Blood stained stones, blood mixed soil, a
black bead neckless, pieces of bangles of green
colour, one wrist watch, two sticks, one pair of
Kolhapuri slipper, wooden leg of cot, four stones of
different sizes, one motor cycle were seized from the
scene of offence. On the very same day, the accused
were arrested. Blood stained clothes of accused
Laxman and Kundlik were seized in the presence of
panchas by seizure memo at Exh.80 and Exh.81
respectively. Subsequently, accused Narayan
willingly pointed out during the course of the
6
Page 7
investigation to the place where the sickle (Katti)
had been hidden. The memorandum statement of
accused Narayan was recorded in the presence of
the panchas. Narayan took the police and the
panchas to the place where sickle (Katti) had been
hidden under a heap of dried stock of grains. It was
seized by memo Exh.83. The seized articles were
duly sent to the chemical examiner. The reports of
the chemical analyzer were produced in court at
Exh.96 and 97.
5. At the trial, PW 1 Sharda narrated the entire
incident. She named all the accused. She also
described how all the accused were inter-related
and belonging only to one family of Salgars. She has
given the details which were noticed by the trial
court as well the High Court. It is not necessary to
recapitulate the same. We may notice that she has
narrated the incident which is consistent with the
version recorded by the injured Khushal before PW
9 at the hospital. She narrates that when her
7
Page 8
husband returned home evening before the assault,
he had told her about the scuffle that he had with
accused No.2 because he had diverted the water of
the canal to his own field. She also narrated about
the obstruction of the motor cycle when she was
going alongwith her husband and the infant from
Tadkalas to Phulkalas for buying some household
goods. She described how accused No.2 had
obstructed the motor cycle and had asked Khushal
about the quarrel on the previous day. He had also
told Khushal that he was “acing a bit smart”. After
the motor cycle was stopped, accused No.1 called
the other persons from the farm house. All the
accused came there armed with weapons like sticks,
stones, sickle (Katti). They pushed PW 1 Sharda and
deceased Khushal from the motor cycle. They
started assaulting Khushal and she tried to shield
her husband by lying on top of his body. However,
she was pulled away by accused No.1. She was
badly hit by accused No.1. She was kicked and also
8
Page 9
given fist blows. All the time Khushal and PW 1
were shouting for help. However, all the accused
dragged Khushal away from the road to a spot in
front of the farm of the accused. They continued
assaulting her husband with their respective
weapons. She points out that on hearing her
shouts, Shivmurti Shirale, Shivhari Shirale and
Ram Kubde came running to the place where the
assault was taking place. On seeing them, the
accused dropped their weapons and ran away. She
has narrated also how she stopped an auto-
rickshaw and went to the village Tadkalas to inform
her father-in-law about the assault. Subsequently,
in the same auto-rickshaw she went to the police
station and informed the police about the incident.
She further narrates how she accompanied her
husband to the hospital at Parbhani. PW 2 Kishan
is also an eye witness whose land is near the land of
accused No.2 Manikrao. He has stated that at about
6.30 he was watering the groundnut crop in his
9
Page 10
field when he heard shouts coming from the farm
house of the accused No.2 at about 6.30 p.m. He
along with Shivmurti who was also watering his
crop in the adjoining land went to the farm house,
they saw that Khushal was being viciously
assaulted by all the accused. He also narrates the
entire incident as described by Khushal in the
statement given to PW 9. PW 7, Jiwanaji is the
father of deceased Khushal. He is not an eye
witness. He was informed about the incident by his
daughter-in-law. He closed his shop and he was on
the way to the place where Khushal had been
assaulted when he noticed that the police jeep
coming on the road. He travelled in the police jeep
to the scene of the incident. He states that Khushal
was lying in a pool of blood in front of the farm
house of the accused. He states that he had asked
Khushal about the incident when Khushal had
informed him that accused No.2 to 11 had
assaulted him. He then narrates how Khushal had
1
Page 11
been taken to the hospital and about his death. PW
9, PSI Ingale, also narrated the entire incident, as
noticed above. The prosecution also examined PW 3,
Dr. Chaudhari, who had conducted the post-
mortem examination. He had noticed the following
external injuries :-
1. “Contused lacerated wound over left wrist
posteriorly 3 x 3 x 2 cms. Blood clots present.
2. Contused lacerated wound right knee
anteriorly size 8 x 4 x 1 cms. Blood clots
present.
3. Contused lacerated wound over right thigh
medial aspect size 5 x 4 x 2 cms., blood clots
present.
4. Contused lacerated wound right leg anteriorly
size 2 x 2 x 1 cms. Blood clots present.
5. Contused lacerated wound left leg 3 x 2 x 1
cms. Blood clots present.
6. Contused lacerated wound left leg calf 6 x 2 x
1 cms. Blood clots present.
7. Contused lacerated wound left plam thenar
aspect 6 x 3 x 2 cms. Blood clots present.”
1
Page 12
6. According to this doctor, all these injuries were
caused by hard and blunt object and the injuries
were caused within the last 12 hours. He had
noticed the fracture of middle third right humerus,
fracture of lower third radius ulna, fracture of lower
third of right tibia and fracture of right patella. On
internal examination, he noticed that one contusion
on scalp right parietal region size 3 x 3 cms. On
internal examination of scalp he found meninges
contested and subdural of haematoma of 3 x
2 cms. Brain was found congested. He, therefore,
opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem
including the internal injuries. He also opined that
the cause of death was due to subdural haematoma
with pulmonary embolism with haemorrhagic shock
due to multiple fractures. The post mortem report
was produced as Exh.70.
7. PW 8, Dr. Rajeshwar was the medical officer who
had been assigned the duty of casualty on
9th March, 1998 from 8 pm to 8 am. He also states
1
Page 13
that on that night Khushal was admitted in the Civil
Hospital Parbhani. He was having multiple injuries
with cerebral concussion with multiple fractures
with peripheral circulatory failure. He points out
that he was brought by police constable and was
referred by P.S.Tadkalas. He also states that PSI of
Police Station Tadkalas had contacted him for
recording the statement of the injured. He examined
the patient and permitted the PSI to record the
statement of the injured. He categorically stated
that the PSI recorded the statement. He was present
while the statement of the injured was being
recorded. After the statement was recorded, he
examined the patient and gave the certificate that
the patient was conscious to give the statement. He
identified the endorsement on the statement which
was Exh.89.
8. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the Sessions
Court convicted all the accused, as noticed above.
The High Court re-examined the entire evidence and
1
Page 14
did not find any reason to differ with the findings
recorded by the trial court.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the case of the prosecution is unbelievable and
deserves to be discarded. It is submitted that the
ocular evidence is completely inconsistent with the
medical evidence. It is pointed out that the whole
story has been concocted. The entry made in the
station diary about the incident on the basis of the
statement made by PW 1 was never produced before
the court. PW 9 PSI did not register the FIR even
when he had gone to the scene of the crime. It is
further pointed out that the dying declaration
cannot be relied upon. According to PW 9, it was
recorded between 8.20 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. However,
PW 8 says that Khushal was admitted at 8.55 p.m.
The record says that the certificate of the doctor
stating that the injured was fit to give statement
between 10 p.m. to 10.10 p.m. The FIR came to be
1
Page 15
recorded at 11.30 p.m. and the injured died at
12.15 to 12.30 a.m. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, the whole story is
concocted. It has been put forward only due to
enmity between the family of the accused with the
family of the deceased. Learned counsel has also
pointed out that the deceased was in fact an
undesirable character. Show cause notice has been
issued to him as to why he should not be externed.
According to the learned counsel, Khushal was
actually riding the motorcycle when he was under
the influence of liquor. He lost control of the
motorcycle, as a result of which all the three riders
fell of the motorcycle. The injuries suffered by them
were due to the motorcycle accident. Learned
counsel further pointed out that the conduct of the
PW1 is wholly unnatural. According to her, after the
assault she left her husband alone in a seriously
injured condition and went away in a auto
rickshaw. She also left her infant child on the road.
1
Page 16
According to the learned counsel, this is not
expected from a wife who’s husband is fighting for
his life due to fatal injuries. It is further pointed out
that all the witnesses have insisted that Khushal
had been assaulted with the sickle (katti) but the
injuries sustained by him were contused and
lacerated wounds. They have pointed out the cross-
examination of the PW 3 Dr.Kalidas, who had
conducted the post mortem on the dead body of
Khushal. The doctor had clearly stated that he
cannot specify the external injuries corresponding
to the injury mentioned in Column No.19. This
injury was so serious that there was formation of
blood on the brain which led to formation of
pressure on the brain. He had further stated that
due to formation of blood on the brain and
haematomma a person becomes unconscious.
Contused lacerated wounds can be caused by hard
and blunt object and also by a fall on the ground.
Learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy
1
Page 17
reliance on the observations that in case of major
accident such types of injuries are possible. This
doctor has further stated that injuries in column 17
are possible if a person is driving the vehicle in
drunken stage and the motor cycle skidded and it
fell on one side and the rider falls on the other side.
The appellants had also emphasised that none of
the witness had seen any specific part on which the
injuries were inflicted with Katti. Since according to
the appellant, the medical evidence is inconsistent
with the actual evidence, the entire prosecution
case needs to be discarded.
11. Attacking the credibility of PW 1 and 2, the
appellants submitted that PW 1 did not name any of
the accused when she went to the police station
though she was present there from 7 p.m. till 7.30
p.m. She also did not mention the names of the
accused while she was travelling in the jeep with the
police. She admitted in the cross examination that
when her husband has been assaulted in front of
1
Page 18
the farm house of the accused, she could not see as
to who had inflicted which injury. It is further
pointed out that although she claims that she had
been badly assaulted by accused No.1 yet she did
not get her medical examination.
12. The evidence of PW2 is sought to be discredited on
the sole ground that he happens to be related to the
deceased. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellants
have been convicted with the aid of Section 149.
This according to the appellants is unsustainable.
As there was no occasion for all the accused to
come together at that particular time. All the
accused are living at different places and there is no
evidence of any common intention. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel that even if there
was a common intention, it was not to kill Khushal.
At best it could be said that accused had come with
the common intention of giving him a good
thrashing because of the incident that occurred on
the previous day. Therefore, at best, the appellant
1
Page 19
could have convicted for the offence under Section
326 IPC and not 302 IPC.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State of
Maharashtra has submitted that the trial court as
well as the High Court, upon reconsideration of the
entire evidence, has concluded that the
involvement of all the accused in the assault on
Khushal has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This Court, in exercising the powers under Article
136 of the Constitution of India, would not re-
appreciate the evidence and substitute its own
opinion for the findings recorded by the trial court
and the High Court. It is only in very exceptional
circumstances when a decision shocks the
conscious of this Court that powers under Article
136 would be invoked. Learned counsel pointed out
that in this case there is cogent evidence which is
sufficient to support the conclusions recorded by
the trial court as well as the High Court. Learned
Counsel pointed out to the evidence of the eye-
1
Page 20
witness PW 1 Sharda, wife of the deceased, and PW
2 whose land virtually adjoins the land of the
accused. Both these witnesses had given consistent
eye-witness account. They were present when the
assault had actually taken place. The evidence of
the wife cannot be discarded as she herself is an
injured witness. The evidence of these two witnesses
corroborates the evidence of each other on three
crucial aspects: (i) Genesis of the dispute (ii) the
manner in which the assault took place and (iii)
events that took place after the assault. He points
out that both these witnesses were subjected to
lengthy cross-examination but the evidence
remained un-impeached. The ocular evidence of the
two eye witnesses is consistent with the statement
made by Khushal firstly before his father PW 7
Jiwanaji. Secondly the statement which was
recorded at Parbhani Hospital in the presence of PSI
Ingale PW 9, and Dr. Mukashe, PW8. The statement
made by Khushal, having been certified by the
2
Page 21
Doctor, PW 8 to be made when he was conscious to
make a statement, cannot be either disbelieved or
discarded. Both these dying declarations are
consistent with the ocular evidence. The third most
important piece of evidence is the recovery of
various items at the instance of the accused. The
sickle allegedly used by the appellant Narayan was
stained with human blood. Similarly, clothes of all
the accused which were taken into custody by the
police and seized were also stained with blood. The
weapons used by the appellant were also stained
with blood. Learned counsel further pointed out
that none of the accused was able to explain any of
the evidence appearing against them in the
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C,
1973. Learned counsel further pointed out that the
medical evidence clearly shows that there are so
many injuries caused to Khushal that his death
resulted due to shock and hemorrhage. He
submitted that none of the submissions made by
2
Page 22
the learned counsel for the appellants can be
supported by the evidence on record. It is further
pointed out by the learned counsel for the State of
Maharashtra that all the appellants have been
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149
IPC. The offence under Section 149 is a specific and
substantive offence. It is pointed out that for the
purpose of application of Section 149 IPC, the
prosecution had to prove the presence and
participation of the accused in an unlawful
assembly. This is duly proved by the fact that all the
accused came together armed with various weapons
which were used to assault Khushal. He further
submits that Section 149 which fastened the
criminal law on the accused does not require the
prosecution to prove any overt act against any
particular accused.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, it
2
Page 23
must be noticed that the Trial Court as well as the
High Court, on due appreciation of the evidence,
have found all the appellants guilty of the offences
punishable under Section 302/149 IPC. The
acquittal of accused No.9 and accused No.11 of all
the charges clearly demonstrates the care and
caution with which the Trial Court as well as the
High Court have examined the evidence. Even
though the powers of this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution are very wide, but it would not
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, save
in exceptional circumstances. It would interfere in
the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as
the High Court if it is found that the High Court has
acted perversely and/or disregarded any vital piece
of evidence which would shake the very foundation
of the prosecution case. In other words, this Court
would exercise the powers under Article 136 where
the conclusion of the High Court is manifestly
2
Page 24
perverse and unsupportable on the evidence on
record.
15. As noticed above, we have been taken through the
evidence by the learned counsel of both sides. We
are unable to agree with the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants have been falsely implicated, or that the
assault did not take place in the manner projected
by the prosecution.
16. PW 1, Sharda has clearly stated that on the fateful
day, she alongwith her infant child was riding on
the motorcycle which was being driven by her
husband. She has clearly stated that her husband
was compelled to stop the motorcycle as accused
No.2 had come and stood in the way. It is
significant that the incident had taken place firstly
on the road adjacent to the farm of the accused
person, secondly Khushal was dragged by the
2
Page 25
accused person to a place in front of the farm of the
accused persons. The assault was continued by all
the accused with their respective weapons. This
narration of the events was not shaken when she
was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by
different learned counsel for all the accused. We do
not find much substance in the submission that her
evidence needs to be discarded as she did not name
each and every accused person at the first
opportunity, when she went to the Police Station.
Her plight at such a situation is not difficult to
imagine. She had done whatever was feasible to
report the matter to her father-in-law. She then
proceeded to inform the police, without wasting any
time. She has narrated the entire sequence of
events as a witness in Court. She has given the
precise inter-se relationship of all the accused.
However, we find substance in the submission of
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari that even Sharda did
not think that her husband was so seriously injured
2
Page 26
that he may die. Otherwise, her first impulse would
have been to move him to the hospital or arrange for
a doctor. She was aware that he had been injured
only on arms and legs. But this does not detract
from the fact that the assault had taken place as
narrated by her. The fact that she could not indicate
the precise injury caused by each of the accused is
quite understandable as her husband was being
attacked by a large group of people. In such a
situation, it would perhaps be humanely impossible
for anyone to indicate the precise injury caused by
each one of the accused/appellant. We, therefore,
find no infirmity in the ocular evidence given by
Sharda PW1.
17. Furthermore, her evidence is duly supported by
PW 2, who had come running to the scene of the
crime on hearing the commotion at the farmhouse
of the accused persons. It is noteworthy that on
seeing PW2, all the accused are stated to have
2
Page 27
discarded their weapons and ran away. The
evidence of this witness also could not be shaken
during cross-examination. It has further come in
evidence that on receiving information about the
assault on his son, PW7 promptly reached the scene
of the crime. Luckily on his way he was picked up
by the police jeep which had been brought by Sub-
Inspector Ingale PW9 for investigation of the crime.
On reaching the scene of the crime, both PW7 and
PW9 have stated that they found the husband lying
severely injured in a pool of blood. Both the
witnesses have also fixed the spot in front of the
farm of the accused persons. PW1 had clearly stated
that she had tried to save her husband by lying on
his body but she had been pulled away by accused
No.1 who had then proceeded to assault her. She
had also further stated that the accused had
dragged her husband by the collar of his shirt to a
spot in front of the farmhouse of the appellant. They
continued to assault her husband with the
2
Page 28
respective weapons. The assault on Khushal in front
of the farmhouse is further supported by the
evidence of PW2 who has given a corresponding
narration of the assault. Therefore, the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 being consistent cannot be lightly
brushed aside. PW 7 further goes on to state that on
his arrival, he inquired from his son as to who had
caused the injuries. The son had clearly stated that
family member of Salgar had assaulted him. The
statement made by the injured before PW7 is
further strengthened by the statement that was
recorded subsequently at Parbhani Hospital by PW9
in the presence of PW8. The statement clearly
indicates that the incident took place exactly as
narrated by PW1. The statement has been recorded
at the time Khushal was certified to be conscious
and in a fit medical condition to make a statement.
The dying declaration being consistent and clear
also cannot be discarded.
2
Page 29
18. The medical evidence would also indicate that
Khushal had been very severally beaten. But at the
same time, it can not be said to be an assault with
intent to kill. Firstly, all the accused are armed
with sticks and bricks etc. In our opinion, there is
no evidence to indicate that Narayan was holding a
“Katti” (sickle). It is noteworthy that Khushal had
sustained external injuries on the left wrist, right
knee, right thigh, right leg, left leg, left palm as well
as head. There was hardly a bone in his body that
was not broken. The number of injuries caused to
Khushal clearly shows that the assault was
premeditated. All the injuries were lacerated and
caused by blunt weapons. None of the witnesses
could say if any injury had been caused by Katti
(sickle). According to Dr. Chaudhari, PW 3, the
head injury could be the result of a rider falling
from the motorcycle.
2
Page 30
19. In our opinion, the appellants have failed to point
out any infirmity in the conclusions recorded by the
Sessions Court as well as the High Court with
regard to the assault. On this issue, both the
judgments do not suffer from any such perversity,
which would shock the conscious of this Court. In
fact, in our opinion, the entire prosecution evidence
when considered from all angles leads to a
conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt, that Khushal
was a victim of a premeditated assault by all the
appellants with their respective weapons.
20. However, given the nature of weapons used, the
location of the injuries and the nature of the
injuries caused, it would not be possible to hold
that the appellants shared a common object of
causing the murder of Khushal. In our opinion, the
accused had merely decided to teach him a lesson
for having a quarrel with PW 2 on the previous day.
They, therefore, appear to have made up their mind
3
Page 31
to give him a good thrashing for acting “a bit smart”.
In such circumstances, it would not be possible to
uphold the conviction of the appellants under
Section 302 IPC. However, at the same time, the
nature of injuries cannot be said to be superficial. It
has come in evidence that numerous bones in the
legs and arms of Khushal had been broken. The
injuries being grievous in nature, the offences
committed by the appellants would fall within the
mischief of Section 326 IPC.
21. In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed
and the conviction of the appellants under Section
302 is set aside. Instead thereof, they are convicted
under Section 326/149 IPC. For the offences under
Section 326/149 IPC, the appellants are hereby
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
seven years. The conviction and sentence recorded
by the courts below under any other sections of IPC
are maintained.
3
Page 32
22. The appeals are partly allowed, as indicated above.
…………………………….J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
……………………………..J. [H.L.Gokhale]
New Delhi; August 28, 2012.
3
Page 33
3