Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2009

PANNA LAL AND OTHERS     …. Appellants

Versus

STATE OF M.P.     …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 10.05.2007 passed by  

the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  Bench  at  Indore,  in  Criminal  Appeal  

No.1256 of 1997, affirming the judgment and order dated 11.12.1997 of the  

learned Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar in Sessions Case  

No.46 of 1996.

2. The present Appellant Nos.1 to 4 and one juvenile were alleged to have  

committed  offences  under  Sections  147,  148,  302/149  and  323/149  of  the  

Indian Penal Code by causing murder of one Ramkunwarbai and for having  

caused hurt to Girdhari (PW-1), Satyanarayan (PW-2) and Hariram (PW-5).  At  

the stage of trial the case of juvenile was separated and directed to be dealt

Page 2

2

with by the Juvenile Court.   The present  appellants were convicted for  the  

offences with which they were charged and sentenced to suffer (i) one year  

simple  imprisonment   under  Section  147  IPC  (ii)  two  years  simple  

imprisonment under Section 148 IPC (iii)  life imprisonment for the offence  

punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default  

whereof  to  suffer  simple  imprisonment  of  one  year  and  (iv)  simple  

imprisonment of six months under Section 323/149 IPC.   The judgment and  

order  of  conviction  and  sentence  passed  by the  learned Additional  District  

Judge having been affirmed by the judgment under appeal, the same is under  

challenge in this appeal by special leave filed by the present appellants.   

3. During the pendency of this appeal, in view of the certificate regarding  

his age, Appellant No.4, was ordered to be released on bail vide order dated  

23.02.2011.  It may be noted that according to the certificate said Appellant  

No.4 was also a juvenile as on the date of offence.

4. According to the prosecution, Panna Lal, Anandi Lal and Uday Singh i.e.  

appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein are sons of Ranchhod.  Said Ranchhod had one  

more son, namely Shankar, whose whereabouts were not known.  The deceased  

Ramkunwarbai was wife of said Shankar.  It is alleged that there was a dispute  

between the parties regarding shares in the land of Ranchhod.  It is alleged that  

on  10.10.1995  at  about  2030  hrs.  said  Ramkunwarbai  along  with  Girdhari  

(PW-1), Satyanarayan (PW-2), Bhura (PW-3) and other persons went to collect

Page 3

3

the crop of soyabin which was already harvested.  When this party was about  

300 feet  away from the disputed field,  the accused party came armed with  

lathis, sword and other weapons of offence and obstructed them.  It is further  

alleged that a dispute arose and accused party struck blows on the deceased  

Ramkunwarbai,  who  died  instantaneously.   Girdhari,  Satyanarayan  and  

Hariram also suffered injuries in the transaction/ altercation.  Girdhari rushed  

to the Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar at about 2330 hrs and lodged FIR  

(Ext.P/1).  Dr. R.L. Patidar (PW-8) examined the injured persons.  The post-

mortem on the body of Ramkunwarbai was performed by Dr. Ashutosh Sharma  

(PW-15), who found the following ante-mortem injuries:

“Injury No.1 : Cut wound on the right side of frontal brain  above the eyebrow which was from the middle of frontal  brain to the right  ear,  size  – 15 x 4 cm x bone deep on  which blood had clotted and between both sides of wound  there was gap.

Injury No.2:  Cut wound on the right  side of  skull  from  parietal bone to temporal bone.  Size – 15 x 4 cm x bone  deep, from this wound brain was coming out.

Injury No.3: Right  upper  jaw was fully  broken and the  entire mouth was filled with blood.

Injury No.4: On the right side of the back from shoulder to  groin (kulha) many blue marks.

Injury No.5: Lacerated wound – on the right ear, size 3X ½  x ¼  cm the sides of which were irregular, on which there  was clot of blood.   

Injury No.6:  Lacerated wound – on the left ‘pinna’ size 2  ½ x 2 ½ cm ¼ cm on which there was clot of blood.

Page 4

4

Injury  No.7:  Bone  was  broken  on  the  right  side  of  the  skul.”

According to the doctor the cause of death was shock due to extensive  

loss of blood because of injuries on vital parts of the body.   

5. After  investigation  was  complete,  the  charge-sheet  was  filed  and  on  

committal of the case charges were framed by the Trial Court to which the  

accused  pleaded  not  guilty  and  claimed  that  they  were  falsely  prosecuted.  

According to them the land belonged to them.  Appellant No.4 had pleaded that  

on the date of incident he was not on the spot.  The remaining accused claimed  

that the disputed land was in their possession, that they had sown soyabin and  

had cut  the  same which  was lying in  the  field,  that  the  complainant  party  

wanted  to  take  away  the  soyabin  forcibly,  that  the  complainant  party  was  

armed with deadly weapons and that when the accused party asked them not to  

take away the crop, the complainant party assaulted the accused party.    

6. Relying  on  the  testimony  of  Girdhari  (PW-1),  Satyanarayan  (PW-2),  

Bhura (PW-3), Luna (PW-4) and Hariram (PW-5) the learned trial court found  

that  the  prosecution  had  successfully  proved  charges  against  the  persons  

accused  and  passed  the  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  as  mentioned  

hereinabove.   The  appellants  being  aggrieved,  preferred  criminal  appeal  

No.1256 of 1997 before the High Court.

7. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that in the civil litigation at

Page 5

5

an  interim stage  the  land in  dispute  was  found to  be  in  possession  of  the  

appellants accused; that the complainant party had no right to enter on the land;  

that  the  appellants-accused  were  justified  in  exercising  the  right  of  private  

defence;  that  the  complainant  party  had  opened  the  assault  in  which  the  

accused had also sustained the injuries; and that the prosecution had failed to  

explain the injuries on the person of the accused-appellants.  After considering  

the entirety of the matter, the High Court found that the complainant party was  

about 300 feet away from the disputed land and as such no right of private  

defence arose in favour of the accused.  It was further found that the accused  

had  not  shown  that  there  was  any  injury  on  the  person  of  the  accused.  

Considering  the  evidence  on  record  and  believing  the  testimony  of  eye-

witnesses, some of whom were injured, the High Court affirmed the view taken  

by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

8. The certificate, on the basis of which Appellant No.4 was ordered to be  

released on bail, not having been seriously disputed, we declare him to be a  

juvenile on the date the offence was committed and deem it proper to separate  

his case to be dealt with by the Juvenile Court in appropriate proceedings.  The  

order of sentence as against him is ineffective as a result of Section 7A of the  

Juvenile Justice (Care for Protection of Children) Act, 2000.  As regards the  

other accused, we do not find any material and reason to differ from the view  

taken  by  the  courts  below.   It  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Shashindra  Tripathi,

Page 6

6

learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  accused-appellants  that  they were  within  

their rights in exercising the right of private defence.  Ms. Bansuri Swaraj,  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-State,  on  the  other  hand,  

emphasized the fact that the incident in question had occurred 300 feet away  

from the disputed land and also stressed on the nature of injuries suffered by  

the deceased Ramkunwarbai.  We find force in her submissions.  The injuries  

show that  the skull  was broken as a result  of injuries from a sharp cutting  

weapon  and  the  bone  matter  had  come  out  through  the  gaping  wound.  

Considering  the  matter  in  its  entire  perspective  we  find  that  the  present  

appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are guilty of the offences with which they are charged.

9. We thus  confirm the  order  of  conviction  and sentence  passed by the  

courts below as against Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and dismiss their appeal.   

     ....……………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, March 23, 2015

Page 7

7

ITEM NO.1C               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).  1453/2009 PANNA LAL & ORS.                                   Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF M.P.                                      Respondent(s)

Date : 23/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.                    Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv.                      

For Respondent(s) Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv.

                  Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR                       

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit  pronounced  the  non- reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  Dipak Misra and His Lordship.  

The appeal is dismissed insofar as appellant Nos. 1,2 and 3  are concerned. Insofar as appellant No.4 is concerned, the Court  passed the following order in terms of the signed non-reportable  judgment:

“The certificate, on the basis of which Appellant No.4 was  ordered to be released on bail, not having been seriously  disputed, we declare him to be a juvenile on the date the  offence was committed and deem it proper to separate his case

Page 8

8

to  be  dealt  with  by  the  Juvenile  Court  in  appropriate  proceedings.   The  order  of  sentence  as  against  him  is  ineffective as a result of Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice  (Care for Protection of Children) Act, 2000.”

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)