LexGOPAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 889 GO PAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1710 of 2007) MAY 19, 2011 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.304 (Part I) and s.324 - Five accused - Appellant-accused inflicted knife blow on the victim resulting in his death - Other accused persons inflicted c sword blows and blow by cycle chain on the complainant party - Trial court held appellant guilty for commission of offences u/ss. 148, 302, 3231149, /PC, and other accused persons ul ss. 148, 3021149, 323 - High Court found appellant guilty ul s.304 (Part I) and sentenced him to unde'rgo rigorous D imprisonment for 10 years while other accused were found . guilty only u/s.324 - Both appellant and State challenged the judgment of High Court - Held: Conviction of appellant- accused uls. 304 (Part I) upheld, however, in order to meet the ends of justice, his sentence reduced to period already E undergone which was more than 6 years - Conviction of the other accused uls.324 upheld in view of the fact that medical evidence showed that injuries sustained by the complainant party were simple in nature and, further, injuries sustained by the accused were not explained by the prosecution. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1710 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 19.10.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Crl. A. No. F 328 of 1995 G WITH Crl. A.No. 1711of2007. 889 H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 6 S.C.R. A S.K. Dubey, Subhash Kaushik, Malini Poduval, Praveena Gautam, C.D. Singh, Vikas Bansal, Vibha Datta Makhija, Vartika Sahay, Malini Poduval for the Appellant. The following Order of the Court was delivered B ORDER 1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1711 of 2007 also as both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 328 C of 1995, preferred by accused Gopal and Criminal Appeal No. 429of1998 preferred by accused Shankarlal, Nandlal, Dinesh and Chhote@ Chhotalal decided on 19.10.2005. 2. Five accused were charged and prosecuted for · D commission of. offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149 IPC in the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 227 of 1992. The Trial Court pronounced the judgment on 31.3.1995, holding the accused Gopal guilty for commission of offences under Sections 148, 302,323/149 IPC, accused E Shanker Lal and Nand Lal under Sections 148,302/149, 323 IPC, accused Chhotelal and Dinesh under Sections ·148/302/ 149,323/149 IPC and awarded punishment together with fine as described in its judgment. F 3. Against the said judgment and order, as mentioned hereinabove, two criminal appeals were preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court, which were disposed of by the common impugned judgment. 4. The High Court, in the appeal of Gopal, has found him 1 G guilty for commission of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, whereas in the other Criminal Appeal, accused Shankarlal, Nandlal and Chhotelal were found guilty for commission of offence under Section 324 IPC and awarded sentence to the period already H undergone by them with fine of Rs. 200/- each. The accused GOPAL v. STATE OF M~DHYA PRADESH 891 Dinesh was not found guilty for any of the offences and was, A accordingly, acquitted. 5. State has preferred appeal only against that part of the judgment and order, whereby accused Shankarlal, Nandlal and Chhotelal have been found guilty under Section 324 IPC and B accused Dinesh has been acquitted. Accused· Gopal has preferred appeal on the ground that in view of the free fight between accused and the complainant party and the nature of injuries sustained by some of the accused persons, he deserves to be acquitted. c 6. It is pertinent to mention here that State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein and whereunder conviction and sentence awarded to accused Gopal under Section 302 IPC was altered to one under Section 304 Part-I IPC. In this view of the matter, the State cannot 0 challenge that accused Gopal should have been convicted und~r Section 302 IPC. ' 7. The prosecution story, in short, is as under: That on 30.6.1992, a meeting of a Patidar Community was convened whe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.