Bhagirath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2009

BHAGIRATH ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI,J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2007 in and

by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the

appellant under Section 302 IPC and also the life imprisonment

imposed upon him.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2005 at about

10.00 p.m. the deceased-Bherulal was surrounded by the appellant-

Bhagirath (armed with farsi) and other accused persons (since

acquitted) viz. Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai and Ramkunwar. In

the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused

Bhagirath is said to have inflicted the farsi blow on the right

side of skull near ear. When PW-6 (Ramchandra) tried to save the

deceased, he also sustained injuries on his right hand. Further, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.10.25

case 16:33:15 IST Reason: of the prosecution is that all other accused (since

acquitted) also inflicted injuries on the deceased-Bherulal. On

completion of investigation, the appellant-accused and other 2

accused were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections

148/325/302 read with 149 IPC.

3. Relying upon the evidence of injured eye witness (PW-6),

the Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused under

Section 302 IPC and other accused under Section 302 read with

Section 149 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo life

imprisonment. For the conviction under Section 325 read with

Section 149 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one

year.

4. In the appeal before the High Court, the High Court

confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused and also

sentence of imprisonment as aforesaid. So far as the other co-

accused are concerned, the High Court acquitted all of them

holding that the charges against them have not been established

beyond reasonable doubt.

5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Agarwal, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as Ms. Swarupama

Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of

Madhya Pradesh, and also perused the impugned judgment and the

materials on record.

6. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW-6

(Ramchandra), an injured eye witness, who has deposed about

quarrel between the deceased-Bherulal and the accused party. PW-6

has also spoken about the infliction of farsi blow by the

appellant-Bhagirath on the right side of the head near the ear of

the deceased. When PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased-Bherulal,

PW-6 (Ramchandra) also sustained injuries on his right hand. PW-6 3

was also injured in the occurrence is supported by the medical

evidence and evidence of PW-2 (Dr. C.S. Gangrade). PW-6 being

injured eye witness, his evidence stands on higher footing.

Presence of injuries on the person of PW-6 lends assurance to his

testimony (See: Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. reported in (2010)

10 SCC 259 ). We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve

the testimony of injured eye witness(PW-6).

7. The High Court acquitted all the other accused, since fatal

blow is attributed to the appellant-accused. The question falling

for consideration is to the nature of the offence. As pointed out

earlier, the occurrence was at about 10.00 p.m., when there was

wordy quarrel between the accused party and the deceased –

Bherulal that there was a quarrel between them is established

from the evidence of PW-6 also. In the quarrel, the appellant-

accused has inflicted injuries on the right side of the head of

the deceased measuring 15x2 ½ x 3 c.m. Though there was another

injury found on the deceased it was one contusion measuring 10x2

cm on lower portion of right neck. The fourth exception to

Section 300 IPC deals with death committed in sudden fight

without premeditation. The sudden fight implies the absence of

premeditation. Even as per the evidence of PW-6, there was a

wordy quarrel and in that quarrel the appellant inflicted farsi

blow on the head of the deceased. As the injuries inflicted on

the deceased in the sudden fight between the deceased and the

accused party. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused

to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that

the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The 4

manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased

attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is

modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced

to the period already undergone.

8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section

302 IPC is modified as conviction Section 304 Part-I IPC and

sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already

undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released

forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case.

9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE] NEW DELHI 23RD OCTOBER, 2018