Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  375 OF 2010

RAM KUMAR & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. … RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

The appellants,  who were convicted under  Sections 302/149  

and 148, IPC by the Trial Court and whose conviction was altered by  

the High Court to Section 302/34, IPC, have filed this appeal by way  

of special leave, having been dissatisfied with the judgment and order  

dated 4th December, 2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at  

Jabalpur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2000.

1

Page 2

2. The facts in brief, as discerned from the prosecution story, are  

that on 8th November, 1999 at about 5.00 p.m., some quarrel took  

place  between  the  complainant  Hiralal  (PW-1)  on  one  side  and  

appellant No. 2 (Sukha Manidas) and two other accused on the other  

side.  The  complainant  then  rushed to  the  Police  Station,  Amdara  

along with his father (Mohanlal Sahu) for lodging a report against the  

accused  who  quarreled  with  him.  While  the  complainant  and  his  

father (the deceased) were returning home from the police station  

about 9.00 p.m., in the midway, appellant No. 3 (Suresh) appeared  

suddenly  from behind  and  attacked  Mohanlal  Sahu  (father  of  the  

complainant)  with  a  stick  (lathi)  giving  severe  blows,  resultantly  

Mohanlal Sahu fell down on the ground. Soon thereafter, the other  

accused, namely, Chintamani,  armed with a sword, Sukha Manidas,  

carrying an iron rod and Suresh, Ramkumar and Ramesh with lathis  

in  their  hands appeared there and attacked Mohan Lal  Sahu with  

their  weapons/sticks  giving  continuous  beatings.  The  complainant  

shocked thereby and out of fear, took shelter behind some bushes  

and immediately after the accused left the scene of occurrence, the  

complainant along with a villager Ramkishore Sahu (PW 2) noticed  

that  Mohan  Sahu  (deceased)  was  soaked  in  the  blood  and  he  

2

Page 3

succumbed to the injuries caused by the accused.  After  informing  

about the incident to his brother and mother, the complainant went to  

the police station and lodged F.I.R. (Ext. P-1) against the accused  

persons.

3. The police, after registering the case, took up the investigation  

immediately. The Investigating Officer (PW-14) arrived at  the spot,  

conducted inquest,  recorded statements of  witnesses and arrested  

the  accused  persons.  At  the  instance  of  the  accused,  the  I.O.  

recovered weapons used in the crime, prepared seizure memo and  

sent the body of the deceased for postmortem.  Charge Sheet was  

accordingly filed against all the five accused under Sections 148 and  

302/149, IPC and the matter was thereafter committed to the Court of  

Session. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. At the trial, the prosecution, for establishing its case, examined  

as many as 15 witnesses and the accused in their defence examined  

three witnesses in order to rule out the charges against them. The  

Trial Court, on the basis of analysis of entire evidence in the light of  

facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  formed  an  opinion  that  the  

prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond  

any reasonable  doubt.  The Trial  court  eventually  convicted all  the  

3

Page 4

accused and sentenced them for the crime committed under Section  

302/149,  IPC to  suffer  imprisonment  for  life  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs.500/-,  in default,  to further suffer  imprisonment for  two months.  

Whereas for the offence committed under Section 148, IPC they were  

sentenced to suffer imprisonment for  one year. However,  both the  

sentences were directed to run simultaneously.

5. Having been aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence  

passed by the Trial Court, all the accused approached the High Court  

in appeal. The High Court, after reconsidering the entire case on the  

basis  of  material  on  record  and  upon  reappreciation  of  evidence  

including that of Doctor (PW 7) who performed postmortem on the  

body of the deceased, came to the conclusion that the evidence of  

the complainant can be found to be reliable against all the accused  

except  one  accused—Ramesh  Sahu,  The  High  Court,  therefore,  

giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the said Ramesh Sahu from all the  

charges. Insofar as  the conviction of other accused is concerned, the  

High  Court  altered  their  conviction  from  Section  302/149,  IPC  to  

Section 302/34, IPC and accordingly the accused were sentenced to  

undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to  

suffer  further  rigorous imprisonment  of  two months.  As far  as  the  

4

Page 5

conviction under Section 148, IPC is concerned, all the accused were  

acquitted of the charge.

6. In  the  present  appeal,  only  three  accused  i.e.  Ramkumar,  

Sukha Manidas and Suresh,  have challenged the impugned order  

passed by the High Court.

7. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the appellants  

before us is that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case.  

More specifically it was argued that the name of appellant No. 3—

Suresh  was  not  mentioned  in  the  FIR,  and  he  was  intentionally  

implicated  in  the  case  by  an  afterthought.  The  evidence  of  

prosecution  witnesses  is  not  consistent  and  there  are  several  

contradictions and infirmities in each other’s statement. The further  

argument  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  is  that  the  medical  

evidence  does  not  corroborate  the  evidence  of  the  complainant  

(eyewitness) to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. As  

the  Doctor  has  not  specified  that  the  injuries  on  the  body  of  the  

deceased were sufficient to cause the death, application of Section  

302, IPC is not proper. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the  

orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are  

erroneous, illegal and have to be set aside.

5

Page 6

8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, vehemently  

contended  that  the  finding  of  the  learned  Trial  Judge  that  the  

appellants are guilty of the charged offences was based on a careful  

appreciation of entire material on record, supported by the ocular as  

well as medical evidence. The High Court also, after reappreciation of  

entire  evidence  found  the  accused  guilty  of  the  offences  and  

accordingly affirmed their conviction. The appellants brutally killed the  

deceased  for  which  they  are  justifiably  punished  and  thus,  the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  cannot  be  questioned.  He  finally  

submitted  that  there  is  no  merit  in  this  appeal  so  as  to  warrant  

interference of this Court and the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  both  sides  and  also  

carefully  gone through the material  on record.  Undisputedly,  there  

was enmity between the accused and the complainant party and it  

appears that a criminal case was also pending between them. We  

find from the record that  soon after  registering complaint,  the I.O.  

(PW 14)  reached the  place  of  occurrence  and remained there  till  

1.00 p.m. on the next date i.e. 9th November, 1999 for investigating  

the case and he also recorded statements of witnesses. At that point  

of  time  itself,  complainant  (PW  1)  mentioned  the  name  and  role  

6

Page 7

played by the appellant No. 3 (Suresh) as recorded by the I.O. in the  

case  diary.  The  same  stand  has  been  further  affirmed  by  the  

complainant (PW 1) in his testimony that five persons attacked and  

caused injuries to his father and deposed that  Suresh, Ramkumar  

and Sukh Manidas wielded lathis  on his  father.  It  was specifically  

mentioned that  Appellant  No.  3  (Suresh)  hit  at  the  kanpati  of  the  

deceased  with  his  lathi.  Another  independent  eyewitness,  PW-10,  

(Tukodilal) also affirmed the presence of Appellant No. 3 at the scene  

of crime causing injuries to the victim by stick (lathi). He stated that  

he  saw  Ramkumar,  Suresh  and  Ramesh  beating  Mohan  Sahu  

(deceased) with lathis and another accused Chintamani was hitting  

the  deceased  with  sword.  Therefore,  it  can  be  said  without  any  

shadow of doubt that the Appellant No. 3 as well as other accused  

have participated actively in the crime and caused severe beatings to  

the deceased with their respective weapons/sticks.

10. We find  from the autopsy  report  (Ext.  P-10)  that  Dr.  Ganga  

Prasad (Pw-7),  Block Medical Officer,  PHC Amdara, District  Satna  

who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased  

has recorded the following injuries on the body of the deceased:

7

Page 8

(i) Sharp injury on the head just 3 cm above the hair  line of mid forehead. Size is 4 cm x 2 cm. Blood clot  present. Direction of wound is vertical.

(ii) A stab wound is present on the left side of the  Temple, size is 1 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm.

(iii) Right side of the arm bone humerous is fractured at  the level of upper 1/3 portion.

(iv)  Right side of the fibula bone is fractured at lower  1/3 portion.

(v) A lacerated wound present on the lateral aspect of  the right leg at the lower 1/3 portion.

(vi) 4 stab wound is present on the medial aspect of the  left leg. Size of each wound is 2cm x 1 ½ cm x 2  cm. It is produced by 4 teeth like instrument.

(vii) Multiple contusions bruise reddish blue in colour is  found on the both side of chest, on the abdomen as  well as on the back side.

(viii) Fingers of the both hands are semi flexed, left arm  is also semi flexed position.

The medical evidence also revealed that in the internal examination  

of the body it was found that skull, 10 ribs, right humorous and right  

tibula were fractured, Liver, spleen and left kidney were ruptured. The  

Doctor (PW 7) opined that the deceased had died due to traumatic  

shock  and  neurogenic  shock  and  the  death  might  have  occurred  

within 14 to 18 hours.

8

Page 9

11. Considering the aforesaid injuries and fractures sustained by  

the victim, which are as dangerous as to cause death of a person, in  

our opinion, it is not necessary for the Doctor to give a specific report  

to  the effect  that  the injuries  were sufficient  in  ordinary  course to  

cause death. In the facts and circumstances, it can be said that the  

appellants in pursuit of their common intention caused serious injuries  

on the victim which resulted in his death. Therefore, the stand taken  

by the appellants that they should not be dealt with under Section  

302/34, IPC cannot be accepted.

12. Another stand consistently taken by the appellants before the  

Courts below and also before us that there are various discrepancies  

and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses also  

cannot  be  upheld  in  view  of  the  corroborative  statements  of  

prosecution witnesses, especially ocular witness PW-1 and another  

independent eyewitness PW-10.

13. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we  

are of the view that there is ample evidence to prove that the accused  

have, with common intention, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased  

which  resulted  in  his  death.   The  medical  evidence  completely  

corroborates  the  evidence  of  prosecution  witnesses.  We therefore  

9

Page 10

find no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court  

convicting the accused for the offences committed by them.

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that this appeal has no  

merit  warranting  our  interference  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution, and the same hereby stands dismissed.

…………………………………………J.   (DIPAK MISRA)

………………………………………….J.   (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI, JULY  01, 2014.

10