LexMAHESH & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( [2011] 11 S.C.R. 377 MAHESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] A 8 Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Conviction and sentence under-Altercation betweef) parties resultingin fatal gun shot C injuries to deceased by main accused - Trial court convicted the main accused uls. 302 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment under Arms Act- However, acquitted appellants (co-accused) on the ground of some embellishment in the prosecution case - D High Court upheld conviction of the main accused as also passed similar order of conviction against the appellants - Appeal by the appellants - Held: pw 1 who filed the information with the police was not ·an eye-witness - As such non-mentioning about the role played by the appellants in the E First Information Report not fatal to the prosecution case - Also recording of the statements of eye-witnesses after 8 days not fatal to the prosecution case since the police officer gave a plausible and possible explanation for same - Motive for the offence is established - There was an enmity between the complainant party and the accused persons - Prosecution examined at /east three eye-witnesses to the occurrence of F the incident wqo stated as to how the incident happened as also the different and various role played by the accused persons - Witnesses examined were relatives of the deceased and, thus there is no ground and reason why they should be G disbelieved as also why they would not speak the truth - Prosecution witnesses stated that appellants held the hand of the deceased and also at the same time exhorted the main 377 H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 11 S.C.R. A accused to bring the gun and to fire upon the deceased so as to kill him, which is corrobor?ited - Thus, it is proved and established that the appellants had the common intention of killing the deceased - They intentionally become a party to commit the murder of the deceased - Order of conviction and 8 sentence passed against them by the High Court1 is upheld - Doctrine of constructive criminal liability - Evidence - Witnesses. c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.1999 of the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2001. 0 P.C. Agarwal, Ambuj Agarwal, Nitin Singh and Santosh Singh for the appellants. Aishwarya Bhati, Jyoti Upadhyay, Kiran Singh, Rajnesh Bhaskar, Sanjoli and C.D. Singh for the Respondent. E The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, F Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has not only confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of Shri Ramdutt, who was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him G to undergo imprisonment for life and for 3 years rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act but also set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in the cases of Mahesh and Kanhaiyalal. H 2. The High Court by passing the impugned judgment and MAHESH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 379 order has convicted both the aforesaid accused persons under A Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The sum and substance of the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is that all the three accused persons have now been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian B Penal Code and, therefore, all of them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 1.11.1993, the complainant Sadri Lal(PW 1) along with Rambabu (PW 3), son C of deceased Kirori, went to their chilly field to water the same. The said field was adjacent to the field of Mahesh and Ramdutt who, at that point of time, were watering their field. When asked by the complainant and Rambabu about watering their field, Mahesh and Ramdutt told them that they can water their field D only after watering of their field is completed by them. 4. It is alleged that on hearing this, PW 1 and PW 3 came b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.