Present appeal
1. The appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 20th November, 2009, whereby the High Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the present appellants. The learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore had convicted the appellants under Section 148 and Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 02 years for offence under Section 148 IPC and R.I. for 10 years for offence under Section 304 (Part-I) with a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for 6 months. The High Court, while confirming the conviction under 304 (Part-I), reduced the sentence to seven years.
Case facts
2. The prosecution case in brief is that there was a dispute between accused persons and one Mr. Guman Singh, father of deceased Jeevan Singh on account of purchase of land of one Gulab Singh by the accused. It is the prosecution case that on 23rd April, 1997, when deceased Jeevan Singh was going to a vegetable market, Indore for selling the vegetables on his scooter, at around 07:30 a.m., when he reached in front of the house of one Ramlal in Village Alwasa, all the appellants armed with Axe, Farsa and Dharia started assaulting Jeevan Singh. Jeevan Singh fell down on the ground from the scooter. P.W.6 Padam Singh, who is the uncle of the deceased Jeevan Singh, on hearing cry of Jeevan Singh, reached on the spot and saw the appellants-accused assaulting Jeevan Singh with various sharp edge weapons. Since, the accused persons also attempted to assault Padam Singh, he ran away and hid inside the jungle. P.W.1 Bhagwantibai, one Ramesh and P.W.7 Peer Mohd. had also witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the appellants went to the house of Guman Singh and threatened him. Jeevan Singh was taken to the hospital at Indore by P.W.8-Peer Mohd. and Rajendra Singh.
Analyzing the evidence
6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the evidence on record.
7. The incident is not disputed by the parties.
9. We find that from the nature of injuries, it cannot be said that the instant case would either fall under the Section 325 or Section 326 of the I.P.C. The question, therefore, that will have to be considered is as to whether the conviction under 304 (Part-I) is sustainable or requires alteration to 304 (Part-II).
Nature of injuries are lacerated wounds caused only by blunt side of weapon
10. No doubt that there are 09 injuries. However, all the injuries are lacerated wounds and, therefore, they can be caused only by the blunt side of the weapons used. If the appellants had an intention to do away with the deceased, nothing prevented them from assaulting the deceased with the sharp side of the weapons.
No intention only knowledge to cause death
11. We, therefore, find that it cannot be said that the appellants had an intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, from the nature of injuries, it is clear that the act was done with the knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause the death of the deceased.
12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the case would not fall under Section 304 (Part-I) and would fall under Section 304 (Part II) of the I.P.C.
Sentence modified from s. 304 part I into s. 304 part II IPC
13. We, therefore, alter the judgment and order of the Trial Court as well of the High Court and convert the conviction of the appellants herein from Section 304 (Part-I) to the one under Section 304 (Part-II) of the I.P.C.
Party
POP SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1846 OF 2010 – November 29, 2023 – 2023 INSC 1038.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/5735/5735_2010_4_102_48716_Judgement_29-Nov-2023.pdf
pop-singh-caseDownload
