LexATMARAM & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012] 4 S.C.R. 529 ATMARAM & ORS. V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2008) MAY 10, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss. 302, 3021149, 307 and 3071149 - Five accused c attacking two brothers and their sister with various weapons - One of the brothers died - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to all the five accused by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Held: The presence of the two injured eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence has been D established beyond reasonable doubt - They are reliable witnesses and worthy of credence - They have stated that all the accused caused injuries to the deceased with 'farsi', 'dharia' and 'lathis' - The medical evidence shows 10 injuries on the body of the deceased - The motive has also been E brought out - The fact that the injuries were inflicted by a collective offence upon the deceased and the injured witnesses, is duly demonstrated not only by the medical report, but also by the statements of the doctors - Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish its case. F s. 300, 3rdly - Murder - Held: If there is an intention to kill and with that intent, injury is caused which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the offence would clearly fall within the ambit of para '3rdly' of s. 300 and, therefore, would be culpable homicide amounting to murder G - In the instant case, the intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the deceased was manifest - The cause for having such an intent is also proved by the prosecution - The manner in which all the accused assaulted the deceased even 529 H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A after he fell to the ground and the act of continuously inflicting blows on the body of the deceased, clearly shows that they had a pre-determined mind to kill the deceased at any cost, which they did - The accused even caused injuries to the vital parts of the body of the deceased - The cumulative effect of B all the injuries was obviously known to each of the accused, i.e., all the injuries inflicted were bound to result in the death of the deceased which, in fact, they intended - Furthermore, the doctor had opined that the deceased had died because of multiple injuries and fracture on the vital organs, due to c shock and haemorrhage. The five accused appellants were prosecuted for causing the murder of the brother of PW-1 and causing injuries to PW-1 and PW-2. The prosecution case was that on the day of incident at about 4-4.30 p.m., when PW- D 1, his younger brother 'G' and sister PW-2 were returning to their village and had reached near the village, the five accused-appellants emerged from the fields shouting that the said 'G' and his relatives had set their soyabean crop afire and attacked the complainant party with farsi, dharia E and lathis. The injured were taken to the hospital with the help of PW 8 and others. On the basis of the statement of PW1, a dehati nalish was recorded at about 6.20 p.m. At about 7 p.m. the statement of injured 'G' was also recorded in the presence of the witnesses. His condition F being serious, arrangements were made to shift him to Civil Hospital, but he died on the way at about 11.30 p.m. The trial court convicted the five accused ulss 302, 3021 149, 307 and 307/149 IPC etc. and sentenced all of them to imprisonment for life with fine. The High Court G confirmed the conviction and the sentence awarded by the trial court. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellants that there were serious contradictions between the statements of PWs 1 and 2; that the medical H evidence did not support the statements of PWs 1 and ATMARAM & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA 531 PRADESH 2; and that as per the medical evidence, there was no A single injury which could be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death and, therefore, at best it could be a case u/s 304 (Part-II) and/or u/s 326 IPC and not a case u/s 302 IPC. .. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. From a bare reading of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that according to PW1, not only accused 'GK' had caused injury on the head of the C deceased by farsi but other accused persons had also caused injuries to him with /athis etc. However, according to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.