Blog

CASE NAME: PARSHURAM  VERSUS STATE OF M.P.

CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.—– OF 2023.  [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022]

DATED ON: NOVEMBER 03, 2023

Quorum: HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE B.V.            NAGARATHNA & JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA.

 INTODUCTION:

The appeals challenge the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, which upheld the judgment and order of 30th March 2005, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The High Court convicted the appellants and sentencing them to life imprisonment for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years, six months, three months, and three months for offences punishable under Section 323 and Section 148 of the IPC. The appeals seek to overturn the previous ruling.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The prosecution alleges that appellant Jalim Singh built a shed in a village that was damaged by a buffalo belonging to the complainant party. Singh beat and drove the buffalo away, then entered Chironji’s house and broke the doors and beat Madan, Leelabai, and Kailash. Chironji fled, and when he returned, he was informed about the incident. The case highlights the dangers of allowing others to exploit vulnerable situations.

On 6th October 2001, a group of people, including the complainant party, were on a tractor to lodge a complaint when accused persons, armed with lethal weapons, waylaid them and caused injuries. The original First Information Report was registered for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 452, 147, 148, and 149 of IPC. The accused persons, nine of whom denied charges, were arrested and charged in a land dispute case.

The trial court found that the prosecution’s evidence proved that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant and his family members, killing one in furtherance of their unlawful assembly. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, Parshuram & Others and Jalim Singh, with all sentences running concurrently.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

INDIAN PENAL CODE

• Section – 147 Punishment for Rioting;

Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section – 148 Rioting, armed with deadly weapon;

Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section – 149 Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object;

If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

• Section – 302 Punishment for murder;

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

• Section – 307 Attempt to murder;

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

• Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
• Section – 323 Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt;

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

• Section – 324 Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means;

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

• Section – 326 Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means;

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. whether the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of the deceased or not.

2. whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not.

3. whether, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC would be tenable or not.

CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS:

Shri Malhotra argued that the High Court and trial court erred in convicting the appellants, claiming that the prosecution failed to attribute a specific role to them. He argued that the conviction under Section 302 of IPC would not be tenable without this information. The counsel argued that the appellant’s role was only holding the lathi, and no injuries caused the deceased’s death could be attributed to him. The counsel also argued that the trial court acquitted two accused persons who were attributed to holding hand-bombs, making the appellants conviction unsustainable. The counsel cited a recent judgment in Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCC Online SC 262, which ruled that non-explanation of injuries is fatal to the prosecution case. Shri Sirajudeen, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-Jalim Singh in appeal in the same case also advanced arguments on the same lines.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

Shri Singh argued that both the trial court and the High Court found the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly. He argued that the unlawful assembly’s purpose was to kill the complainant party members, and no interference was warranted in the trial court’s conviction. Singh also argued that the deceased’s injuries were caused by deadly weapons.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

Chironji is the first informant about an incident involving accused persons assaulting Madan, Lila, and Kamlesh. They were waylaid by Mangal, Roopa, Sewak, Ram Sahai, Parshuram, Lakhan, Jalim, Diwan, Siya, and 4-5 others while on a tractor to the Police Station for complaint lodging. Sewak beat Gupti, Roopa stabbed him, and Lakhan stabbed Madan, causing him to become unconscious. Madan died at the Police Station.

In Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133, a Constitution Bench discussed the law regarding conviction under Section 302 and Section 149 of IPC. The bench ruled that not all individuals in an unlawful assembly must be active for convicting, but must be a member of the assembly and have entertained the common object.

The appellants and accused persons claimed they first reported the attack by the complainant party, who assaulted them upon returning from the police station. They claimed they tried to save themselves, leading to a free fight resulting in injuries, including Madan’s death. The trial court ruled that the complainant party did not use fatal weapons, while the accused used fatal weapons. However, the court disagreed, as Ramrup @ Roopa sustained injuries with a sharp weapon.

In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394, the court observed that non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused during a murder case can lead to inferences such as the prosecution suppressing the genesis and origin of the occurrence, unreliable witnesses, and a defence version that explains the injuries, potentially tarnishing the prosecution case.

Witnesses are interested in the case, but the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries sustained by three accused persons raises doubts about the incident’s true origin. A cross case was registered against the complainant party for the injuries sustained by the accused.
The accused claim the complainant party assaulted them after returning from the police station, leading to a fight resulting in injuries, including Madan’s death. The incident was caused by a buffalo, possibly to teach a lesson.

JUDGEMENT

The court considered the view that, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be sustainable. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had an intention to cause the death of the deceased. As such, we find that the case would fall under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC.

In the result, the appeals are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Part-II of Section 304 of IPC;

(ii) The appellants are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click here to view the full judgement: PARSHURAM VERSUS STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH