LexMAHESH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MARESH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AUGUST 28, 1996 B (A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 304 (Part-I~a!lsing death of a person by inflicting C pharsa blow 011 the victim-Plea of self defence rejected by trial co!lrt--How- ever it acqllitted the acC!lsed of the offence under S.302 and held him guilty of an offence under S.304 (Pa1t-l}-On appeal High Cowt convicting the accused under S.302-0n farther appeal held : Assault was made on the deceased during a sudden qumrel without any premeditation-Inflicted only one blow-Hence Exception-4 to S.300 is clearly attracted and the offence fell D under S.304 (Part-l~onviction by High Cowt set aside and that of tlial cowt restored-However, sentence enhanced to 6 years R.l. and fine of Rs. 1000 instead of 2 years R.J. and fine Rs. 500 imposed by the tlial co!lrt. E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 303of1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.92 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl.A. No. '730 of 1985. H.L. Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Gupta for the Appellant. F U.N. Bachawat, Prashant Kumar and Uma Nath Singh for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC for the G murder of Krishna Kumar on 24.7.1983. According to the prosecution case, the deceased along with PW-2 Purshottam and PW- 6 Badda, were working as agriculture labourers on the field of Purshottam Sharma PW-1. On 24.7.1983 at about 1.00 p.m. while the deceased and other labourers were ploughing the field belonging to PW-1, the appellant came there for grazing H his cattle. As the cattle entered the field of Purshottam Sharma, PW-1, 300 MAHESHv.STATE 301 where the crop of Soyabean was standing, the deceased and PW-2 told him A to take his cattle away and not let his cattle damage the crop. The appellant, however, did not pay any heed to their request and insisted that he would graze the cattle in that field only. An altercation ensued between the deceased and the accused. Thereafter, the appellant dealt a pharsa blow on the head of Krishna Kumar. On receipt of the blow, Krishna B Kumar fell down on the ground and died instantaneously, PW-2 and PW-6 rushed to inform Shri Sharma, PW-1, who arrived at the spot. The First Information Report was lodged by PW-1 Purshottam Sharma at police station Narsinghpur at about 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The Investigating Officer, Shri Prakash Chand Sonkar, PW-9, after registration of the FIR, came to the place of o~currence and after preparing the inquest report, c sent the dead body of Krishna Kumar for post mortem examination to the District Hospital, Narsinghpur, where the autopsy was performed by Dr. M.R. Khan, PW-10. The Doctor found an incised wound on the right parietal region with fracture of the same and damage to the brain. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death of Krishna Kumar was caused as a result D of that injury and the injury was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant was arrested on 26.7.1983 and while in custody, he made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to recovery of a pharsa from the roof of the upper storey of his house. The pharsa was found to be blood stained and E according to the chemical examiner and the serologist, the blood found thereon was of human origin. The appellant was sent up for trial. After recording the evidence on behalf of the prosecution and examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial court vide judgment dated 3.8.1984 came to the conclusion that the evidence given by PW-2 Purshot- F tam Mehra and PW-6 Badda, the two eye- witnesses of the occurrence, was cogent, trustworthy and reliable. The trial court also found that the medical evidence provided by Dr. Khan, PW-10 lent corroboration to their occular testimony. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence found that the appellant had caused the injury with the pharsa on the head of the deceased when he prevented the appellant from grazing hi.~ cattle in the G field of Purshottam, PW-1. The trial court, however, after rejecting the plea of self defence found that the case of the appellant was covered by Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC and after giving reasons in support of that conclusion, held the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and acquitted him of the o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.