At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For the Appellant: C.D. Singh, Prateek Rusia, Avi Pandey, Advocates. For the Respondents: --------
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment, dated 28.3.2008, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1999, wherein the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein against the judgment, dated 23.12.1998, of the Additional Sessions Judge, District
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
heopur Kalan, Madhya Pradesh in Session Trial No. 268 of 1994 and thereby acquitted the accused/Respondent No.1 herein from the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accused/Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh.3. Even though service of notice is complete on all the respondents but no one has entered appearance on their behalf.4. So far as respondent No. 1 (Accused No. 5) Man Singh, who was the main accused, is concerned, appeal against him has already been dismissed as abated vide this Court's order dated 3rd February, 2015.5. It is to be noted that P.W.-1, Gangadhar is the person who has lodged the F. I. R. He is the son of deceased (Mathuralal). He alleged that his father died because of the injuries caused by Man Singh, who has given a blow on the head of the deceased. He specifically alleged that Man Singh has caused injury with Gandasa on the head of the deceased from the sharp side.6. Further P.W.-4 Devlal, is another eye witness, who has not specifically assigned any injury to any of the accused and has merely given an omnibus statement that all the accused have caused injury to the deceased by sickle (Gandasa), lathis and spear. According to him, accused Mansingh had a Gandasa, accused Brahma, Pappu and Banshi had lathis and accused Mansharam was empty handed. Injuries by sickle (Gandasa) and spear (Barchi) are not found on the body of the deceased. In such circumstances, the statement of Devlal (PW-4) is also doubtful.7. In our opinion, the High Court is justified in recording that, as per the statement of the doctor who performed the autopsy, there is no injury to the deceased by sharp and edged weapon on the head or any part of the body of the deceased. Thus, the injury on the head of the deceased attributed to respondents becomes doubtful.8. Moreover there is no evidence on record to show, who caused the injury on the head of the deceased. Gangadhar (P.W-1) in his statement has stated that accused Pappu caused injury on the hand of the deceased while accused Bramha and Banshi had caused injury by lathi on the stomach and chest of the deceased. These injuries are not attributed to be the cause of the death of the deceased. Additionally the deceased had died due to the head injury which is not attributable to any of the accused.9. Taking into consideration the overall evidence, the High Court has rightly come to a conclusion that there is no specific allegation against the main accused. Nevertheless it should be noted that he has subsequently died after his acquittal by the High Court. Additionally there is no dispute as to fact that the rest of the accused were not carrying deadly weapons which could cause death of the deceased.10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.