LexMOTI LAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~
MOTi LAL AND ANR.
A
---\
V.
STATEOFM.P.
OCTOBER 3, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
-1
Penal Code, 1860-ss 3 02, 3021149 and 307-Deceased persons
and accused, neighbours bearing animosity with each other-Over
quarrel between their children, accused assaulting deceased with axe c
blows and also those who tried to save, resulting in death of three-
High Court upholding conviction for murder-Justification of-Held:
Justified-Offence committed in gruesome manner-Accused not only
killed two persons but also poured kerosene on one and set her on fire~
They also assaulted those who came to save-Also it cannot be said D
that the irljuries iriflicted by the accused in self-defence.
·-
According to the prosecution case, parties were neighbours and
had animosity with each other. Over a quarrel between their children,
appellant-ML and S, inflicted axe blows and killed Band M. NB-wife E
ofB'and AL-husband of MB, who intervened to save Mand MB were
assaulted by iron pipes and axe blows. ST-daughter of AL, DV and other
children were also assaulted. Appellants had dragged MB, poured
kerosene and set her on fire and later she succumbed to her injuries.
Accused L, HR, KB, GB and HR also participated in the commission F
of offence. FIR was lodged. Appellants and the other accused were
1
charged under section 302/149, 307 and 148. Trial Court imposed death
..,,.
sentence upon appellants for murder of M, B and MB; and also
sentenced them under section 307 IPC for attempt to murder NB and
AL. It convicted other accused under section 324 IPC for causing hurt G
to the children. High Court held that a free fight had taken place
between the parties and on the basis of the actual role played by each
j
of the accused and that injuries on the persons of the accused had not
been explained, it upheld the conviction of the appellants under section
293
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 11 S.C.R.
A 302 and section 302/149 for murder of M, B and MB but reduced their
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. It convicted appellant under
section 307 IPC for attempt to commit murder of AL and imposed
rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It also convicted accused JB
for attemptto murder NB and accused HR for causing hurt to DV under
8
section 324 IPC. It however, acquitted the other accused. Hence the
present appeal.
Appellants-accused contended that keeping in view the fact that
there had been a free fight, the appellants could not be said to have any
intention to kill M, Band MB; and that the prosecution did not explain.
C the injuries on the part of the accused persons.
Respondent-State contended that the sequence of events clearly
establish the cruel manner in which an attempt had been made not only
to kill three persons but to attempt to murder two others and cause
D injuries to the children; that the High Court erred in acquitting the other
accused persons of the serious charges made against them; and that,
had the police not inten'ened, the number of deceased might have
increased.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that the appellants are not guilty of
commission of the said offence. In this case existence of aiiy common
intention has been ruled out. The High Court proceeded to record its
reasons only on the basis of individual acts of the appellants. No case
has been made out that the injuries were inflicted by the appellants in
F their self-defence. In absence of any such case having been made out,
injuries suffered by ~ome of them pale8 into significance. Three persons
lost their lives. The manner in which the offences have been committed
was gruesome. They not only killed B and M but also dragged MB,
poured kerosene and set her on fire. Whosoever had come to save w~s
G not spared. NB and AL had also been assaulted. Even the children were
not spared. Thus, it is not a case where the appellants could be absolved
of the charges of murder ofM, Band MB.
[Paras 20 and 21] (299-A-D)
H
1.2. However, having regard to the fact that the State did not prefer
'
)_
MOTI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. [SINHA, J.] 295
- {,
any appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court A
'1
against the said accused persons, it is not possible to hold that it was
not a case of free fight or the other accused also had any hand therein.
J
[Para22] [299-EJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
B
1268 of 2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.