Juthel And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. The appellants, four in number, stood trial with one Gaya Ram, who along with the appellants was convicted by the court of Session under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 147, I.P.C., but was acquitted by the High Court, whereas the conviction of the appellants was maintained, as altered, under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., as also the sentence of life imprisonment. Hence this appeal.

2. The appellants are stated to be hired men of Gaya Ram, the acquitted co-accused. Since he was under some danger, he had kept these musclemen for his protection. On the day of occurrence, Gaya Ram is said to have exhorted the appellants to kill the deceased and it is at his behest that the appellants opened the attack on the deceased killing him mercilessly by brutally causing him 17 injuries; more than half of which were serious and two of them fatal. The First Information Report was lodged with the police with utmost promptitude in which not only the names of the appellants were mentioned, but mention was also made of the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 ,and 7. At the trial these P.Ws. fully supported the prosecution case and they have been believed by the courts below. All what is urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that they could not be held guilty of the offence of murder for they had never intended to kill the deceased. The argument by the bare raising of it does not succeed. As said before, there were two; fatal injuries on the head of the deceased resulting in extensive fractures of the scalp and injury to the brain tissues. Other injuries were on vital as well as non-vital parts and since some of them were fractures they were grievous. The common intention of the appellant was thus more than manifest from the result could achieve. They beat the deceased to pulp. There is no room to entertain the view that the appellants could be guilty of a lesser offence. The contention is thus rejected.

3. No other point has been urged.

4. In the result, there is no scope in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.