0

The contention that the accused had no intention of causing death of the deceased is wholly irrelevant for deciding whether the case falls in clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC : Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramprakash vs State Of M.P. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049 of 2011, 102 of 2012 and 160 of 2012) upheld that the contention that the accused had no intention of causing death of deceased is wholly irrelevant for deciding whether the case falls in clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC.

Facts of the case – On 09-04-2006 at around 07:30 pm Deepak Chaurasiya (PW4) lodged a Dehati Nalishi at Police Station Civil Line, Datia alleging therein that on Saturday, a Bhandara was organized at the Temple of Bumb Mahadev and when Bhandara was going on, one old lady, namely, Ramrati who was residing behind the Mandi, was beaten by accused Ghanshyam, therefore, accused Ghanshyam was also beaten by the complainant party and on account of said incident, in the morning of 09-04-2006, accused Rakesh, Ravi, Ashish, Santosh, Chandrabhan Yadav, Govind Singh, came there and asked the complainant Deepak Chaurasiya as to why Ghanshyam was beaten and at that time, they assaulted him and at that juncture, uncle of complainant Mahesh Chaurasiya intervened the matter. Thereafter, all accused persons went from the place of occurrence by giving a threat to complainant Deepak Chaurasiya to kill him. Thereafter, in the afternoon of 09-04-2006 accused Ashish, Ghanshyam and Ramprakash came to the house of old lady Ramrati and beat her and this fact was narrated by Ramrati to Mahesh Chaurasiya, uncle of the complainant. Again, accused Ashish and Ramprakash came to the handcart shop of Mahesh Chaurasiya and some hot talks took place there and thereafter, went from there by giving a threat to kill him. On the same day, at around 07:30 pm, complainant Deepak Chaurasiya, his uncle Mahesh Chaurasiya and brother Arjun were standing in the said shop, all accused persons come there on Suzuki motorcycle. Accused Ravi, Ashish and Rakesh were armed with katta and thereafter, surrounded the uncle of complainant Mahesh Chaurasiya and onthe exhortation of accused Ramprakash, accused Rakesh caused a gunshot fire from his Katta on the head of Mahesh Chaurasiya and at the same time, when other uncle of complainant Munnalal Chaurasiya who was doing Chowkidar at the shop of one Ratanlal, also came there for rescue, then accused Ashish fired a gunshot from his katta which hit on the chest of Munnalal Chaurasiya as a result of which, he fell down on the ground. When they tried to catch hold of the accused, accused Ravi also caused gunshot fire but they saved themselves. Both Mehesh Chaurasiya and Munnalal Chaurasiya died on the spot due to gunshot injuries sustained by them.

It was submitted on behalf of appellants that the judgment passed by the trial Court suffered gross error of law. Merely on the basis of presence of appellants on the place of occurrence, it cannot be presumed that they were unlawfully assembled and with common objects caused gunshot fires at the deceased. Neither there is any overt act on the part of appellants nor there is any active participation of appellants for committing murder of both the deceased.

Judgment – After analysis of the clause Thirdly, it was held by the court that the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S. 300 “Thirdly”; First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type, just described, made up of the three elements set out above, is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution¬† the offence is murder under S. 300 “Thirdly”.

Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Accused persons were unlawfully assembled on the spot by means of firearms as well as other deadly weapons and surrounded the deceased and with intention of common object committed murder of both deceased by means of firearms and their evidence is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Therefore, the argument advanced by counsel for the appellants has no force and same is hereby rejected. There is no infirmity in passing the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the both the appeals being devoid of substance, are hereby dismissed.

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY – SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY

Click here to view your judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat