LexRAM KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 7 S,C.R. 919 RAM KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2010) JULY 01, 2014 [DIPA':< MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 - Conviction under - Prosecution case that five persons armed with weapons attacked the father of the complainant resulting in his death C - Incident withessed by complainant - Previous enmity between the parties - Conviction u/s. 3021149 and s. 148 and sentenced accordingly - High Court altered conviction from s. 3021149 to s. 302134 and acquitted the accused of the charge uls. 148 - On appeal, held: Ample evidence to prove D that accused persons with common intention, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased which resulted in his death - Medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence of prosecution witnesses - Corroborative statements of prosecution witnesses, especially ocular witness and another E independent eyewitness - Thus, no infirmity in the judgment passed by the High Court - Evidence.· According to the prosecution case, five persons armed with weapons attacked the father of the complainant, resulting .in his death. The complainant F witnessed the incident. Four hours prior to the incident some quarrel took place between the complainant side and accused side. FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. The trial court convicted all the accused u/s. 302/149 and s. 148 IPC and sentenced them accordingly G for the offence committed. The High Court acquitted 'RS' giving benefit of doubt. As regards the other accused, the High Court altered the conviction from s. 302/149 to s. 919 H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A 302/34 IPC and acquitting the accused of the charge u/s. 148 IPC. Hence, the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There was enmity between the accused B and the complainant party and it appears that a criminal case was also pending between them. It is found from the record that soon after registering complaint, the 1.0.-PW 14 reached the place of occurrence and remained there till 1.00 p.m. on the next date for investigating the case C and he also recorded statements of witnesses. At that point of time itself, complainant-PW 1 mentioned the name and role played by the appellant No. 3-'S' as recorded by the 1.0. in the case diary. The same stand was affirmed by the complainant-PW 1 in his testimony that five D persons attacked and caused injuries to his father and deposed that 'S', 'RK' and 'SM' wielded lath is on his father. Another independent eyewitness, PW-10 also affirmed the presence of appellant No. 3, 'RK', 'RM', 'C' af the scene of crime causing injuries to the victim. E Therefore, it can be said without any shadow of doubt that the appellant No. 3 as well as other accused participated actively in the crime and caused severe beatings to the deceased with their respective weapons/ sticks. [Para 9] [925-A-E] F 1.2. Considering the said injuries and fractures sustained by the victim, which are as dangerous as to cause death of a person, it is not necessary for the doctor to give a specific report to the effect that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. In the facts G and circumstances, it can be said that the appellants in pursuit of their common intention caused serious injuries on the victim which resulted in his death. Therefore, the stand taken by the appellants that they should not be dealt with under Section 302/34, IPC cannot be accepted. H [Para 11] [926-F-G] RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF MOP. 921 1.3. The stand consistently taken by the app~llants A before the courts below and also before this Court that there are various discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses cannot be upheld in view of the corroborative statements of prosecution witnesses, especially ocular witness PW-1 and another B independent eyewitness PW-10. [Para 12] [926-H; 927-A- B] 1.4. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, there is ample evidence to prove that the accused had, with common intention, inflicted fatal C injuries on the deceased which resulted in his death. The medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the High Court convicting the. accused for the offences committed by them. The instant D appeal has no merit warranting our interference u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.