Sakal

Mehttar Ram V. State of Chattisgarh, Cr.L.
J 2011 April 1584
INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860
MEHTTAR RAM V. STATE OF
CHATTISGARH, Cr.L.J April 1584
SUBMITTED TO- DR. PUSHPINDER

SUBMITTED BY- SAKAL SAMRAT
B.COM LL.B.
5TH SEMESTER
286/14
INDEX
0 | Page
Mehttar Ram V. State of Chattisgarh, Cr.L.J 2011 April 1584
S.NO HEADINGS PG. NO.

1 CASE ABOUT 2
2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 3
3 CHARGES FRAMED 6
4 ARGUMENTS 7
- ON BEHALF OF APPELANTS
- ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
5 JUDGEMENT BY CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT 9
6 CASE LAWS REFERRED 12
CASE ABOUT
This is an appeal to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions whereby and whereunder learned Additional
1 | Page
Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide
amounting to murder of Sawat Ram in sharing common intention and causing simple injury
to Urmila and Parmeshwari in sharing common intention, convicted the appellants under
Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced
each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and to undergo RI for three months,
respectively.
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions whereby and whereunder
2 | Page
learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission of
culpable homicide amounting to murder of Sawat Ram in sharing common intention and
causing simple injury to Urmila and Parmeshwari in sharing common intention,
convicted the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 323 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and
pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months
and to undergo RI for three months, respectively.
2. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful night of 18-6-2004 at about 8.30 p.m. Sawat
Ram (since deceased) after consuming liquor was abusing his wife and children, the
appellants herein, who are neighbours of Sawat Ram, came to the house of Sawat Ram.
The appellant Mehttar Ram was holding stick and appellant Shivprasad was holding betel
axe, they dragged Sawat Ram from his house towards lane, assaulted him by stick and
betel axe and caused his instantaneous death.
3. Urmila (P.W. l)-wife of Sawat Ram and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2)-daughter of Sawat Ram
were present in the house and they have witnessed the incident. Within four hours of the
incident. Urmila (P.W. 1) went to the police station and lodged FIR vide Ex. P-1 and merg
intimation vide Ex. P-2.
4. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the
witnesses, prepared inquest over the dead body of Sawat Ram. vide Ex. P-3. Then,
injured Parmeshwari was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P-14C and she was
examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6). vide Ex. P-14, who found one lacerated
wound over forehead. Urmila was also examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) vide
Ex. P-15 and three injuries were found on her body. Dead body of Sawat Ram was sent
for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Ratanpur vide Ex.P-13C. Dr. Anil Shrivastava
(P.W. 6) conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-13 and following injuries were found :-
a. Deep incised wound of size 4" x 1/2 x 3/4" over left side of fronto parietal bone.
b. Deep incised wound of size 31/4" x 1/2" x 3/4" over head.
c. Incised wound over right cheek of size 21/4" x 1/2" x 1/2".
d. Incised wound over right fronto parietal bone of size 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" along with
fracture. Internal bone beneath the injury was found fractured
5. Except injury No. c) all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was
shock and death was homicidal in nature.
3 | Page
6. During the course of investigation, appellant Mehttar Ram was taken into custody, he
made discloser statement of stick vide Ex. P-4 and same was recovered at his instance
vide Ex. P-6. Appellant Shivprasad also made discloser statement of axe vide Ex. P-5 and
same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P- 7. Bloodstained soil, plain soil and three
broken pieces of teeth of the deceased were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-8. One
bamboo stick was recovered from another juvenile offender Ramprasad vide Ex. P-9 and
his clothes were also seized vide Ex. P-10. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide
Ex. P-17. The Investigating Officer also prepared spot map vide Ex. P-21. Bloodstained
sari of the appellant was seized vide Ex. P-6. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized
vide Ex.P-20. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood
was confirmed on axe recovered from accused Shivprasad and stick recovered from
accused Mehttar Ram, vide Ex. P-22. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr. P.C.
7. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur who committed the case to the Court of Session. Bilaspur
where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. In order
to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses.
The accused were examined under Section 313, of the Cr. P.C. in which they denied the
circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the
crime in question.
8. Accused Mehttar Ram has taken specific defence that at the time of incident deceased
Sawat Ram was assaulting him by stick and, therefore, with a view to save himself and in
exercise of the right of private defence, by snatching stick from Sawat Ram he has caused
injury to Sawat Ram. Accused Shivprasad has taken defence that at the time of incident
he was not present in the village and he has gone to Bilaspur (with witness Durga Prasad
(D.W. 1), and thereby he has taken the defence of alibi.
9. After affording oppotunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions
Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.
4 | Page
CHARGES FRAMED
Convicted under-
i. Sec 302 r/w sec 34

ii. Sec 323 r/w sec 34
5 | Page
ARGUMENTS
ON BEHALF OF APPELANTS
1. As per the case of appelants, learned counsel argued that particularly evidence of Urmila
(P.W. 1) and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2), the incident took place on account of filthy language used
by deceased Sawat Ram on Mehttar Ram who was residing in front of the house of Sawat
6 | Page
Ram and on sudden provocation, Mehttar Ram went to the house of Sawat Ram whom Sawat
Ram assaulted on which by snatching stick from Sawat Ram, appellant Mehttar Ram has
caused some injuries to Sawat Ram (since deceased). At the time of incident Mehttar Ram
has also sustained injuries, but same has not been explained by the prosecution. Appellant
Shivprasad was not present at the time of incident. At the time of incident, there was darkness
and the witnesses were not in a position to see as to who has caused injury to whom, by
which object and upon which part of the body. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma further argued that if
evidence of the prosecution is considered as true, even then act of the appellants does not
travel beyond the scope of Section 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code.
2. He further placed reliance in the matter of 1Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc. in which the
Supreme Court has held that if injury is caused to teach lesson to the deceased, act of the
accused does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. He
further placed reliance in the matter of 2Thankachan v. State of Kerala in which the
Supreme Court has held that injury caused by katar with a view to save his mother and death
was as a result of excessive haemorrhage, act of the accused squarely falls under Section 304,
Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He also
placed reliance in the matters of 3Adu Ram v. Mukna, and Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil
Nadu, in which the Supreme Court has held that incident took place on account of sudden
quarrel, case falls under Section 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
3. He also submits that the prosecution is under obligation to explain the injury found over the
body of the accused, if same is not explained, inference would be drawn that the prosecution
has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the
true version, and that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the
person of the accused are lying on a most material point.
4. He relied upon the matter of 4Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar in which the Supreme Court
has held that in a murder case, the non-examination of the injuries sustained by the accused
1 2005 (1) CC SC 460
2 2005 (3) CC SC 1181
3 2008 (3) CC SC 1149 (SC)
4 1976 Cri LJ 1736 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263 in
7 | Page
at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences :
(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has
thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the
accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the
accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
5. He further relied upon the matter of 5Murlidhar v. State of M.P in which the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh has held that the accused is entitled to cause injury in exercise of the right
of private defence and the prosecution is required to explain the injury found over the body
of the accused.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
The learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent, opposed the appeal and
submitted that in the present case, the prosecution has not explained the injury over the body
of one of the appellants and the defence has not adduced any evidence to show that accused
Mehttar Ram has sustained injury at the time of incident. Although the witnesses have
admitted that at the time of incident electric light was not present in the village, but they have
not stated that there was darkness at the time of incident. Urmila (P.W. 1) and Parmeshwari
(P.W. 2)-eye-witnesses have substantially corroborated the case of the prosecution and have
deposed that the appellants have caused fatal injuries to Sawat Ram resulting in his death.
JUDGEMENT BY CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. The homicidal death of deceased Sawat Ram has not been substantially disputed on behalf
of the appellants, otherwise also it established by the evidence of Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W.
5 1978-II MPWN 163
8 | Page
6) and autopsy report Ex. P-13 that four fatal injuries were found over head and face of the
deceased and death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
2. Injury found over the body of Parmeshwari has also not been substantially disputed on
behalf of the appellants and same is also established by the evidence of Dr. Anil Shrivastava
(P.W. 6) and injury report Ex. P-14. Similarly, injuries found over the body of Urmila have
also not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants and same are also established
by the evidence of Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6) and injury report Ex. P-15. As regards
complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, conviction of the appellants is
substantially based on the evidence of Urmila (P.W. 1) wife of the deceased and
Parmeshwari (P.W. 2) daughter of the deceased, both are relative witnesses and both are
injured witnesses, and their presence at the time of incident is natural.
3. Urmila (P.W. 1)-wife of the deceased has categorically deposed in her evidence that at the
time of incident her husband has consumed liquor and was abusing her and her children on
which the appellants whose house was adjoining to her house came to her house, appellant
Mehttar Ram was holding stick and appellant Shivprasad was holding tabli-small betel axe,
they assaulted her husband by betel axe and stick in the verandah, thereafter, they dragged
him towards the lane and assaulted him as of result her husband died instantaneously.
Thereafter, the appellants left the place of incident. Her evidence has been substantially
corroborated by the evidence of Parmeshwari (P.W. 2).
4. The incident took place at about 8.20 p.m. Other witnesses have admitted that at the time of
incident electric light was not available in the village, but they have not stated anything that
there was no other light or there was complete darkness. Parmeshwari (P.W. 20 is injured
witness and she has been examined by Dr. Anil Shrivastava (P.W. 6). As per the evidence of
both the witnesses viz., Urmila (P.W. 1) and Parmeshwari (P.W. 2), both were present at the
time of incident, Sawat Ram (since deceased) was abusing them, at that time the appellants
came to their house, appellant Mehttar Ram was holding stick and appellant Shivprasad was
holding betel axe, they assaulted Sawat Ram in their verandah and thereafter they dragged
him towards the lane and again assaulted him till his death. These witnesses have denied the
suggestion that accused Shivprasad was not present at the time of incident.
5. Shivprasad has examined defence witness Durga Prasad (D.W. 1). As per the evidence of
Durga Prasad (D.W. 1), at the time of incident Shivprasad was with him at Bilaspur,
thereafter, they came to the village and after taking bath in the pond they reached to house at
9 | Page
about 9.30 p.m. As per his evidence, appellant Shivprasad purchased medicine from some
shop, any receipt issued by the shopkeeper would have been the best evidence in support of
the defence of alibi, but for the reasons best known to appellant Shivprasad, neither he has
filed any receipt nor he has examined the shopkeeper.
6. Evidence of Durga Prasad (D.W. 1) reveals that he is completely a chance witness. His
evidence shows that he has tried to explain the fact that from 4-5 p.m. till 9.30 p.m. on the
fateful day, appellant Shivprasad was with him.
7. In the light of evidence of eye-witnesses, evidence of other witnesses does not inspire
confidence. Evidence of Urmila (P.W.1) is well corroborated by the evidence of
Parmeshwari (P.W. 2), promptly lodged FIR Ex. P-1 and merg Ex.P-2 which reveal that the
appellants have caused repeated injuries over the body of Sawat Ram which resulted in his
death. These witnesses have not admitted the injury found over the body of
accused/appellant Mehttar Ram and Mehttar Ram has not adduced any evidence to prove
any injury.
8. As held in the matters of 6Lakshmi Singh and 7Murlidhar definitely the prosecution is under
obligation to explain the injury found over the body of the accused, but the accused is under
obligation to prove that injury was found upon his body that too at the time of the incident,
however, in absence of any evidence of injury sustained by the accused, the prosecution is
not under obligation to explain any such injury. The cases of 8Lakshmi Singh and 9Murlidhar
are distinguishable on facts to that of the present case. Evidence of Urmila (P.W.1) and
Parmeshwari (P.W. 2) well corroborated by the FIR Ex. P-1 and merg Ex. P-2 are sufficient
for drawing inference that the appellants have caused homicidal death of the deceased.
9. As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and in case of direct
evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used,
part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances.
6 Supra note 4
7 Supra note 5
8 Supra note 4
9 Supra note 5
10 | P a g e
10. In the present case, both the appellants went to the house of the deceased, they were
holding stick & betel axe and they assaulted the deceased in his house, thereafter they
dragged him towards the lane and again assaulted him till his death. Present offence is not a
sudden quarrel, the appellants have not caused injuries to the deceased all of a sudden and in
a bit of anger, even the appellants have not caused injuries to the deceased while exercising
the right of private defence or to save any person. Therefore, the cases of Balbir Singh,
Thankachan, Adu Ram and Kandaswamy are distinguishable on facts to that of the present
case.
11. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution clearly reveals that the appellants have
firstly assaulted the deceased in his house, thereafter, they dragged the deceased on the lane
and again assaulted him by axe & stick and caused repeated injuries on head which shows
grave intention of causing his death, also sharing common intention and also causing
injuries to Urmila and Parmeshwari.
12. After appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court has
convicted the appellants under Sections 302 read with Sections 34 and 323 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the aforesaid manner.
13. On close scrutiny, we do not find any illegality in conviction and sentences imposed upon
the appellants by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to
be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
11 | P a g e
CASE LAWS REFERRED
1. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2005 (1) CC SC 460

2. Thankachan v. State of Kerala, 2005 (3) CC SC 1181
3. Adu Ram v. Mukna
4. Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (3) CC SC 1149 (SC)
5. Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, 1976 Cri LJ 1736 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263
6. Murlidhar v. State of M.P., 1978-II MPWN 163)
LATEST CASE LAWS
12 | P a g e
THANKACHAN & ANR V. STATE OF KERALA

10
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court,
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants who were described as A2 and A3 indicating their
position before the trial court, while allowing the appeals filed by the two other accused persons
(A1 and A4).
The conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/-
with default stipulation was upheld.
The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
On 7.2.1997 at or about 6.45 p.m. at Ayamkudy Kara in Muttuchira Village of Vaikom Taluk in
Kotayam District, the 4th accused came driving his goods autorickshaw (pick-u-auto) along with
A1 to A3 in the said goods carrier and pulled up in front of Marangattil House of Sathyadevan @
Sahadevan @ Sahadi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). The deceased was the driver of a
mini lorry. A2 straight away went over to the deceased who was sitting along with PW2 in the
varanda of his house. A2 caught hold of the deceased by the tuck of his dhoti and dragged him on
to the Ezhumanthuruthi Kapoola road in front. The deceased picked up a soda bottle from the
parapet of his house. Seeing this A2 went and picked a soda bottle from the adjacent grocery
shop run by Rajamma (PW 7), the wife of the deceased and came on to the road. From the
southern mud road (road margin) in front of the aforesaid grocery shop, A2 struck the deceased
on the head with the soda bottle. Then the deceased also hit A2 on the head with the soda bottle
in his hand and inflicted an injury. Seeing this A2 sprinkled chilly powder on the eyes of the
deceased. The chilly powder got into the eyes of the deceased who stood there with both hands
held against his face and rubbing his eyes. A1 then exhorted his companions to cut Sahadevan to
death. Thereupon A2 drew a chopper from inside his shirt and cut the deceased on his head
inflicting injuries. A3 stabbed the deceased on his right arm with a knife inflicting injury. A4 then
cut the deceased on the back of his head with a chopper. The deceased fell on the road and was
taken by PWs.1, 2 and 8 to the Kottayam Medical College Hospital. The deceased who had
10 Supra note 2
13 | P a g e
become unconscious on account of the injuries sustained by him succumbed to the same at about
2.10 p.m. on 8.2.1997. Since the aforesaid acts were done by A1 to A4 in prosecution of their
common intention to do so, the accused persons were charged for having committed the offence
of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the court below for the
aforementioned offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case.
The prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 16 and got marked 17 documents as Exts.
P1 to P17 and 8 material objects as Mos. 1 to 8. After the closure of the prosecution's evidence
the accused were questioned under Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with
regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the
prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They admitted
that Exts. P16 and P17 are the wound certificates pertaining to A2 and A3 respectively.
When called upon to enter on their defence, the accused examined the Secretary of the
Ayamkudy Branch of KPMS as DW1. Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 7 and 8 the
trial Court recorded conviction. As noted above, appeal was preferred before the High Court by
all the four accused persons, and the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed while
that of co-accused was allowed. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted even if prosecution version accepted in toto offence under Section 302 IPC is not
made out. As a matter of fact it is the prosecution version that the deceased first assaulted
appellant no.1 with a broken bottle and caused several injuries.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the trial Court and the High
Court have rightly found the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Section 302
IPC.
In essence the stand of learned counsel for the appellant is that Exception IV to Section 304 IPC
would apply to the facts of the case.
For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act
was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. The Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight.
14 | P a g e
The said Exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the First Exception, after
which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same
principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1
there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion
which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct
consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding
that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in
whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts
them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and
blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral
provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the
Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation
or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to
be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own
conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and
aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The
help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused
(a) without premeditation;
(b) in a sudden fight;
(c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and
(d) the fight must have been with the person killed.
To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be
noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes
two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool
down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal
altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or mo re persons whether with or
without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be
a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily
15 | P a g e
depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient
to show that there was a sudden quarrel and that there was no premeditation. It must further be
shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The
expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage".
Considering the background facts, appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC
and not Section 302 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered. Custodial sentence of ten years
would suffice. Fine amount is reduced to Rs.5, 000/-. In case fine is not paid, default sentence
would be two years. Thus, appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Chandra Kaur V. State of Rajasthan

11
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 5.5.1995, passed by the High Court of
Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby said Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1989, and
affirmed conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant
under Sections 459, 307 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code (IPC).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant Chandra Kaur and her husband Gurdeep Singh had
enmity with Bhupendra Singh (deceased), over the possession of plot No. 144 in Sector 2, Mandi
Sardul Shahar. On 9.3.1984 at about 3.00 p.m., PW-1 Jasmail Kaur (mother of the deceased)
came to above mentioned plot. She saw her son Bhupendra Singh running out of his
house with bleeding injuries, and accused Gurdeep Singh (one of the convicts) armed with sword
and his wife i.e. appellant Chandra Kaur, armed with Gandasi (heavy sharp edged weapon) were
chasing him. It is stated that Gurdeep Singh inflicted blows with sword on the head of
Bhupendra Singh near house of Sheopat Kumar, whereafter he (Bhupendra Singh) fell down. It
is alleged by the prosecution that Chandra Kaur exhorted Gurdeep Singh to kill Bhupendra
Singh. It is further alleged that after the incident, the two accused ran away. When PW-1 Jasmail
11 {2015(9) Scale 642 : 2015(9) JT 458 : 2015(3) CalLJ 108 : 2015 ALL MR(Cri)
4936 : 2016(2) CalCriLR 348 : 2016 AIR (SC) 2926 : 2016 AIR (SCW) 2926 : 2016 CriLJ
3346: 2016(2) Andh LD (Criminal) 226 : 2016(3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 227}
16 | P a g e
Kaur went inside the house of the deceased, she saw PW-2 Mangat Ram also lying injured and
bleeding. The third witness is stated to be PW-3 Jagsir Singh, brother-in-law of the deceased.
Oral report of the incident was got lodged at Police Station Sardul Shahar at 3.30 p.m. on the
same day, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered.
PW-10 Prithvi Singh, Station House Officer of the police station, took up investigation and
inspected the spot, prepared site plan, and got sent the dead body of Bhupendra Singh, after
preparing inquest report, for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Sardul Shahar.
PW-4 Dr. Kailash Chandra recorded the injuries on the person of Mangat Ram (PW-2) at about
3.40 p.m. on the very day. The same doctor (PW-4) at 4.40 p.m. (on the same day) conducted
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Bhupendra Singh. During investigation, the weapons
used in the crime were recovered by the Investigating Officer. Also, blood stained clothes of
accused Gurdeep Singh were seized on 13.3.1984. On completion of investigation charge sheet
was filed against six accused, namely, Gurdeep Singh, Chandra Kaur (appellant), Dhanna Singh,
Udai Singh, Talla Singh and Shamsher Singh.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate after providing necessary copies to the accused, committed the
cases to the Court of Sessions. The case against accused Gurdeep Singh and appellant Chandra
Kaur, was registered and one against rest of the accused Dhanna Singh, Udai Singh, Talla Singh
and Shamsher Singh, was also registered. Both the cases were consolidated and trial was held
together. After hearing the parties, the trial court framed the charge against all the six accused,
who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Jasmail
Kaur, PW-2 Mangat Ram, PW-3 Jagsir Singh, PW-4 Dr. Kailash Chandra, PW-5 Dalip @ Media,
PW-6 Avtar Singh, PW-7 Dr. Rajendra Gupta, PW-8 Dr. K.N. Markandey, PW-9 Ram Lal and
PW-10 Prithvi Singh, Station House Officer.
The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which accused pleaded that the evidence adduced against
them was false. They, further, pleaded that they have been impleaded due to enmity.
The trial court, after hearing the parties, found accused Gurdeep Singh guilty of charge of
offences punishable under Sections 459, 307 and 302 IPC. Appellant Chandra Kaur was
convicted under Sections 459 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302
17 | P a g e
read with Section 34 IPC. 307 IPC, i.e. in respect of attempt to commit murder of Mangat Ram;
i.e. for committing murder of Bhupendra Singh. We have already mentioned above that accused
Gurdeep Singh has been convicted and sentenced for his individual act while appellant Chandra
Kaur has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Rest of the accused, namely, Udai
Singh, Talla Singh, Dhanna Singh and Shamsher Singh were convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC by the trial court. All the convicts challenged the
order of conviction and sentence, recorded against them, before the High Court, and the same,
were disposed of by common order. The appeal of Dhanna Singh stood abated due to his death.
The appeals filed by Udai Singh, Talla Singh and Shamsher Singh were allowed, and they were
acquitted of the charge. Rest of the appeals, i.e., that of Gurdeep Singh and Chandra Kaur are
dismissed. Gurdeep Singh has not challenged his conviction and sentence before us, and said to
have underwent the sentence.
In the present case, the only appellant before us is Chandra Kaur, who has been
convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It is argued before us that there is no evidence that the
appellant had common intention with her husband Gurdeep Singh in commission of the crime.
Our attention is drawn to the evidence of PW-1 Jasmail Kaur and PW-2 Mangat Ram. Learned
counsel for the State of Rajasthan pointed out that the witnesses have assigned only role of
exhortation to the appellant.
On going through the evidence on record, we find that there was admitted enmity between the
family of the deceased and that of accused Gurdeep Singh. In such a situation, where the eye
witnesses have not narrated any specific role of appellant Chandra Kaur, rather the specific role
of assaulting with the sword has been given to Gurdeep Singh, it cannot be ruled out that the
name of the appellant has been added due to enmity with the main accused. It is relevant to
mention here that accused Dhanna Singh was also said to have exhorted accused Gurdeep Singh
to commit crime. Not only this, accused Udai Singh said to have kept his hand on the shoulder of
Gurdeep Singh to show his participation with the assailants in commission of murder of
Bhupendra Singh. However, the High Court has not believed the evidence of prosecution
witnesses as against Udai Singh. It is hard to believe that every one mentioned above was
exhorting Gurdeep Singh, in the manner suggested by prosecution. High Court has already given
benefit of reasonable doubt to accused Udai Singh. As such, since it is the duty of the court to
18 | P a g e
separate chaff from the grain, on re-appreciating the evidence on record, we find that it cannot be
said that charge as against appellant Chandra Kaur that she had common intention with her
husband to commit the crime, is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt, and her false
implication with her husband, due to enmity with family of deceased cannot be ruled out.
For the reasons, as discussed above, The Honble Court is inclined to allow this appeal. The
same is accordingly allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable
under Sections 459, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. She
is on bail. She need not surrender.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
19 | P a g e
According
20 | P a g e

Sakal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sakal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mehttar Ram V. State of Chattisgarh, Cr.L.

J 2011 April 1584

SUBMITTED TO- DR. PUSHPINDER

S.NO HEADINGS PG. NO.

i. Sec 302 r/w sec 34

2 2005 (3) CC SC 1181

3 2008 (3) CC SC 1149 (SC)

4 1976 Cri LJ 1736 : AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263 in

JUDGEMENT BY CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

5 1978-II MPWN 163

CASE LAWS REFERRED

1. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab etc., 2005 (1) CC SC 460

LATEST CASE LAWS

THANKACHAN & ANR V. STATE OF KERALA

The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

(a) without premeditation;

(b) in a sudden fight;

Chandra Kaur V. State of Rajasthan

You might also like