POORANLAL & ANR versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 25-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 10 S.C.R..221 
POORANLAL & ANR. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH· 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of2008) 
OCTOBER 25, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, .JJ,) 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s. 304 (Part II) rlw s.34 - Prosecution of five accused 
(including the 2 appellants-accused) - u!ss. 148, 3021149 and 342 c 
JPC - Trial Court acquitted all the accused - lligh Court confined 
the acquittal of three accused, but convicted the appellants-accused 
u!s. 304 (Part fl) r!w s.34 - On appeal," by the accused, held: High 
Court rightly set aside the acquittal of the appellants by segregating 
their case from rest of the acquitted accused - They were rightly 
convicted u!s. 304 (Part fl) r/w s.34 as tltere was 110 motive or D 
intention to kill the deceased, the deceased died 14 days after the 
incident and the doctor had not opined that the injuries were 
sufficient in ordinm)' course of nature to have caused death. 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
E 
HELD: 1. The High Court was justified in setting aside 
the acquittal order in respect of the appellants and convicting 
them under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC. The 
findings of the High Court are based on proper appreciation of 
evidence which the High Court was entitled to record in an appeal 
arising out of the order of acquittal once the leave to file the 
F 
appeal to challenge the order of acquittal was granted to the State 
by the High Court. [Paras 17, 19) [225·B-C] 
· 
2. The. evidence available on record, did establish beyond 
reasonable doubt that the appellants' case was capable of being 
separated from other three accused with a view to find out their G 
role in the incident as against the other three accused. [Para 21) 
[227-A-B] 
3. There was no motive on the part of the accused persons 
(appellants) to kill the deceased. The intention was to teach a 
lesson to the deceased because he had insulted appellant No.2-
H 
221 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 10 S .. C.R. 
A accused in Panchayat on an incident which had occurred in 
marriage in their community in recent past. PW-14-the doctor 
who had performed post mortem did not say in his evidence that 
injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary 
course of nature to have caused death, and the deceased survived 
B for 14 days from the date of incident. These factors were rightly 
taken into consideration for holding the appellants guilty for 
committing offwce falling under Section 304 Part II ofIPC. [Paras 
22, 23] [227-B-D] 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1008 of2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2006 of the High Court 
of M. P. at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 934of1991. 
Vijay Pratap Singh, Prem Prakash, Parmanand Gaur, Advs. for 
the Appellants. 
D 
Sunny Choudhary, Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Advs. for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the 
E two accused persons against the Judgment/order of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 08.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.934 
of 1991 wheri>by the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the 
State against the acquittal order dated 07 .05.1991 of the Additional 
Sessions Judge, Khurai, Dist. Sagar in Sessions Trial No.340 of 1990. 
The High Court while upholding the acquittal of other three accused set 
F aside the acquittal of the appellants herein and convicted them for an 
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and 
awarded each of them to undergc rigorous imprisonment for a term of 
five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and, in default of payment 
G of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three 
months. 
2. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the appeal, relevant 
facts need mention infra. 
3. In short, the case of the prosecution on which the trial against 
H the appellants and other three accused proceeded was as follows: 
POORANLAL & ANR. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
223 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
4. One Hariya (deceased) was the resident of Village Kublai. 
A 
He was a railway employee. On 30.08.1990, at around 5.00 a.m., he left 
for nearby Village-Khurai on a cycle to catch a Train to join his duty at 
a nearby place. At that time, it was heavily raining. When Hariya was 
passing through a Mahua tree in village - Nirtala, one person s

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