MOHINDER PAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF J & K

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 12-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 375
375
MOHINDER PAL AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF J & K
(Criminal Appeal No.1863 of 2010)
JANUARY 12, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Ranbir Penal Code – s.300 Exception I, s.302 and Part I of
s.304 – Grave and sudden provocation – Death of two persons, ‘J’
and ‘M’ – Seven accused – Allegation that accused No.1 and his
sons forcibly detained ‘J’ and ‘M’ in their house and assaulted them
which led to their death due to injuries – Sessions Judge acquitted
accused nos.5 and 6 but convicted accused nos.1 to 4 and 7 u/s
302, 148 and 149 of RPC – High Court upheld the conviction –
Accused no.1 died during pendency of appeal while accused no.2
went absconding – On appeal by accused nos.3, 4 and 7, held:
From the materials placed on record, it appears that the prosecution
has not come with clean hands and has attempted to suppress the
genesis of the incident – Contradictions in dying declaration of ‘J’
as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to in what
circumstances the two deceased went to the house of the accused
persons – Further, accused No.1 also received injuries in the incident
– Prosecution failed to explain the injury sustained by accused No.1
– It was the specific case of the accused No.1 that two persons had
come to his house and they assaulted him with a lathi – The
possibility that the accused persons enraged by the assault on
accused No.1 whilst deprived of the power of self control, by grave
and sudden provocation, attacked ‘J’ and ‘M’ resulting in their death
cannot be ruled out –  Appellants (accused nos. 3, 4 and 7) entitled
to benefit of doubt in view of Exception I of s.300 RPC – Prosecution
failed to prove the case u/s.302 RPC beyond reasonable doubt –
Conviction and sentence imposed upon appellants u/s.302 RPC
converted to the one under Part-I of s.304 RPC.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. From the materials placed on record, particularly,
the Post-Mortem Report, it cannot be disputed that the death of
the deceased was homicidal. [Para 10][380-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
2. The place of occurrence is the house of accused persons.
The versions as to why the deceased ‘J’and ‘M’ as well as P.W.1
went to the house of the accused persons are varying. As per the
version of P.W.1, he had gone there in search of labourers and
thereafter he was caught by the accused persons since there was
a dispute with regard to loan amount of Rs.50/. As per the dying
declaration of deceased ‘J’, deceased ‘J’ and ‘M’ had gone there
to collect grass (fodder). Whereas as per the evidence of P.W.2,
when he was going to Jagatpur to buy bidis he met P.W.1 and
both of them went to the Gali of the accused persons. The I.O.
has admitted that he did not make investigation as to how accused
No.1 (since deceased) had received injuries. It is the specific
defence taken by accused No.1 (since deceased) that while he
was lying on the bed in his room, two persons entered his room
and one of them gave a lathi blow on his head as a result of which
he started bleeding and became unconscious because of the
fracture.[Paras 16 and 17][382-D-G; 383-A-B]
3. From the materials placed on record, it appears that the
prosecution has not come with clean hands and has attempted to
suppress the genesis of the incident. There are contradictions in
the dying declaration as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
as to in what circumstances the deceased ‘J’ and ‘M’ went to the
house of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to
explain the injury sustained by accused No.1 (since deceased). It
is the specific case of the accused No.1 (since deceased) that two
persons had come to his house and they assaulted him with a
lathi. The possibility that the accused persons enraged by the
assault on accused No.1 (since deceased) whilst deprived of the
power of self control, by grave and sudden provocation, attacked
the deceased-‘J’ and ‘M’ resulting in their death cannot be ruled
out. The appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt in view of
Exception I of Section 300 of the RPC. As such, the prosecution
has failed to prove the case under Section 302 of the RPC beyond
reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence imposed upon
the appellants under Section 302 RPC is converted to the one
under Part-I of Section 304 of the RPC. [Paras 18, 20 and 21][383-
B-C; 383-G-H; 384-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal
No.1863 of 2010.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
377

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.