LexBHAGIRATH versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R. BHAGIRATH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 2301 of 2009) OCTOBER 23, 2018 [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 to s.300 – Death caused in sudden fight without premeditation – Prosecution case was that victim was surrounded by the appellant-accused and other accused persons – In a verbal quarrel between the victim and the appellant- accused, a farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear of the victim was inflicted by the accused-appellant – It was alleged that other accused had also inflicted injuries – Victim died – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused u/s.302 and other accused u/s.302 r/w. s.149, and sentenced all of them to life imprisonment – High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant- accused, however, acquitted all other accused – On appeal, held: The injuries inflicted on the deceased was result of a sudden fight between him and the accused party – There was no premeditation – Appellant-accused had caused one injury to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicated that the appellant had not taken undue advantage of the deceased – The manner, the occurrence and the injury inflicted on deceased attracted exception 4 to s.300 – Thus, the conviction of the appellant modified to s.304-I IPC and sentenced reduced to already undergone. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW-6 an injured eye witness, who has deposed about quarrel between the deceased and the accused party. PW-6 has also spoken about the infliction of farsi blow by the appellant on the right side of the head near the ear of the deceased. When PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased, PW-6 also sustained injuries on his right hand. PW-6 was also injured in the occurrence is supported by the medical evidence and evidence of PW-2-Doctor. PW-6 being injured eye witness, his evidence stands on higher footing. Presence of injuries on the person of PW-6 lends 604 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 604 A B C D E F G H 605 assurance to his testimony. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of injured eye witness(PW-6). [Para 6] [606-F-H; 607- A] 2. The fourth exception to Section 300 IPC deals with death committed in sudden fight without premeditation. The sudden fight implies the absence of premeditation. In the instant case, as the injuries inflicted on the deceased was in the sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. [Para 7] [607-C-E] Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259: [2011] 12 SCR 718 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2011] 12 SCR 718 referred to Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2301 of 2009 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2009 of the High Court of M.P., Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2007. P. C. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Ambuj Aggarwal, Nitin Singh, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2007 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and also the life imprisonment imposed upon him. BHAGIRATH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A B C D E F G H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2005 at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased-Bherulal was surrounded by the appellant- Bhagirath (armed with farsi) and other accused persons (since acquitted) viz. Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai and Ramkunwar. In the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused Bhagirath is said to have inflicted the farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear. When PW-6 (Ramchandra) tried to save the deceased, he also sustained injuries on his right hand. Further, case of the prosecution is that all other accused (since acquitted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.