SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.I., R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bhan, JJ.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 648-649 of 2000. D/d. 12.9.2001.

Kripal Singh - Appellant

Versus

State of M.P. and others - Respondents

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Keeping in view the medical evidence, and nature and manner of assault on the deceased as emerging from eye-witnesses account of witnesses - High Court justified in not holding him guilty of murder because all of them could be attribute with knowledge that injures cause by them were likely to result in the death of injured - Rightly convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code.

[Para 6]

Cases Referred :-

PSR Sadhanatham v. Arunachalam and anr., (1980) 3 SCC 141.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the son of deceased-Balwantsingh who died in an occurrence which took place on 10th June, 1992. As many as 10 accused-respondents were sent up for trial for the said homicidal death of Balwantsingh. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 22nd March, 1994 convicted the accused respondents 2 to 11 for offences under Section 148 and 302/149, Indian Penal Code. The respondents were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. For an offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code, all the 10 respondents were awarded one year R.I. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

2. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the accused-respondents 2 to 11 preferred two appeals in the High Court. Five accused joined in each of the two appeals. By the impugned order and judgment dated 28th July, 1999, the High Court, while holding accused-respondents 2 to 11 guilty found that the offence committed by the accused did not fall under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code and relying upon medical evidence as well as testimony of the eye-witnesses, came to the conclusion that the offence, of which the respondents could be convicted, would squarely fall under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Keeping in view the role played by each one of the accused in the occurrence and the weapon with which the accused were armed, the High Court convicted Indersingh, Manoharsingh, Dhansingh and Ajabsingh for an offence under Section 304, Part II/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by them which by that time was found to be more than 7 years. Their sentence of one year R.I. for an offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code was maintained. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

3. As regards accused Ghisaji, it was found that on the date of the judgment, he was eighty years of age. While maintaining his conviction for an offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, the High Court directed his release on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. So far as remaining accused are concerned, namely, Chandersingh, Sajansingh, Bahadarsingh, Raisingh and Kalusingh, who were alleged to be armed only with lathis at the time of occurrence, while maintaining their conviction for an offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code, the High Court sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for two years' RI each for the said offence. Their conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code was, however, affirmed. This appeal by special leave calls in question the acquittal of the respondent Nos. 2 to 11 for an offence under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, basing himself on the Constitution Bench judgment in PSR Sadhanatham v. Arunachalam and anr., (1980) 3 SCC 141, submitted that since the State had not filed an appeal against acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 to 11 for the offence under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code, the appellant, who was also an informant and is son of the deceased, was entitled to maintain this appeal, by special leave, so as to bring to the notice of this Court that grave miscarriage of justice had occurred by the judgment of the High Court in altering the conviction of respondents 2 to 11 from one under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court (supra), the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant to maintain this appeal is not wrong.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentence. The judgment of the High Court correctly analyses the evidence when it upheld the view taken by the trial Court that participation of respondent Nos. 2 to 11 in the occurrence, resulting in the death of Balwantsingh on the fateful day, is established. Since, there is no appeal against the conviction and sentence filed by the respondents, we need not detain ourselves to consider that aspect of the case at all. We do not find any error to have been committed by the High Court in analysing the evidence. The only issue before us is whether the High Court committed any error in altering the conviction and sentence of respondents 2 to 11 from the one under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the trial Court, to the one under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code.

6. We have carefully perused the medical evidence and gone through the statement as well as the post-mortem report submitted by Dr. Praveen Mishra, PW-9. Keeping in view the medical evidence, and the nature and manner of assault on the deceased as emerging from eye-witness account of the three eye-witnesses we are of the view that the High Court was well justified in holding that respondent Nos. 2 to 11 could not be held guilty of the offence of murder and that their offence could only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, because all of them could be attributed with the knowledge that injuries caused by them were likely to result in the death of the injured. The view taken by the High Court is sound and suffers from no error. It is a reasonable view based on proper appreciation of evidence. We find no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

7. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.