advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, July 25, 2014

Doctor's opinion about the injuries - cause of death not necessary = APEX COURT HELD THAT 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.= RAM KUMAR & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF M.P. … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41742

Doctor's opinion about the injuries - cause of death not necessary = 
APEX COURT HELD THAT 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.=

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41742

                                                                  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.
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  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 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
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.
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
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:

        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.
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  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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.