LexAMBARAM versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A A MB A RAM v. STA TE OF M.P. APRIL 27, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302134-Murder-Common intention-Fi/thy language used by C Appellant and other accused while taking drinks-Deceased's sister objected, on which she was assaulted-At this stage deceased intervened but he was also assaulted-Appellant assaulted deceased with axe-He acted on exhortation made by others-At least one injury received by deceased attributed to Appellant-Common intention may develop at the spot- D Appellant rightly convicted under ss.302134. According to the prosecution, Appellant and the other accused were taking drinks near the house of PW9. They started hurling filthy abuses and were creating nuisance when PW9 came out of her house and asked them to behave themselves. But the accused started assaulting PW9. When one E accused hurled a stone at PW9, her brother intervened but he was caught by the accused. Appellant who was carrying an axe, inflicted a blow on his head from its blunt side. Another accused shot an arrow at deceased. He fell down unconscrous and lat~r succumbed to his injuries. Trial Court held Appellant and other accused guilty under Section 302/149 IPC. High Court convicted F Appellant and two other accused under Section 302 r/s 34 IPC. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: l.1. At least one of the ante-mortem injuries received by deceased G attributed to the appellant. The injuries found on the person of the deceased ) both by the Doctor in his injury report as also in the post-mortem report, .,, support the prosecution case. [Para 12) [869-D, E) 1.2. Appellant, took an active part in assaulting the deceased. From the H 866 AMBARAM v. STATE OF M.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 867 materials on record, it appears that he actively associated himself in the entire A episode. Appellant and a co-accused assaulted the deceased with axe whereas another accused shot an arrow. They have been allegedly shouting 'kill-kill'. Apart from that, it appears that the appellant has also assaulted another person on his head. There was absolutely no reason as to why the appellant together with others would assem hie for taking drinks in front of the house of the B deceased and that too armed with such lethal weapons. They were merely asked not to create a nuisance and to behave themselves as they had been hurling abuses in filthy languages. It was not a case where PW-9 gave any provocation. She was unarmed. She was a lady, still then she was assaulted. Intervention by the deceased being her brother at that stage cannot be said to be unusual. It is, therefore, not a case where injuries were caused on a sudden provocation C or in a fit of angler. Appellant does not claim a right of private defence. He is said to have been injured but no medical certificate was produced. [Para 13) (869-E, F, G; 870-A) 1.3. In any event, appellant was carrying common intention. Common intention may develop at the spot. Appellant acted on exhortation made by D others. He participated in the entire occurrence. He was carrying a dangerous weapon. He assaulted not only the deceased but also another person. [Para 19) (872-C) Shajahan & Ors. v. State of Kera/a and Anr., (2007) 7 SCALE 618 and E Raj Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana, [2006) 9 SCC 678, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2006 of the High Court p of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1239 of 1998. Anis Ahmed Khan and Shoaib Ahmed Khan for the Appellant. Dr. N.M. Ghatate, C.D. Singh and Morusagar Samantaray for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. G 2. Appellant herein was convicted for commission of an offence under H 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R. A Sections 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith several other persons namely Hukum, Girdhari, Patiram, Narayan and Prahlad. 3. Prosecution case shortly stated is as under:- Savitribai and other members of her family were sitting in the courtyard B of the former's house at about 4 p.m. on 2.3.1991. Prahladsingh, Ambaram, Patiram, Hukum, Narayan and Girdhari were drinking liquor. They started hurling filthy abuses. Savitribai came out from her house and asked them to behave themselves. They adopted a hostile stance. They started assaulting her, causing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.