LexRAMSWAROOP AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 4 S.C.R. 198 RAMSWAROOP AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2008) MARCH 12, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 148, s. 302 rlw s. 149, ss. 452 and 325 rlw s. 149 - Murder - Unlawful assembly assaulted victim C with various weapons resulting in his death - One injured eye- witness - Conviction of accused-appellants - Justification - Held: Justified - No reason to disbelieve the version of injured eye-witness (PW-5), the mother of the victim who 'Sustained injuries while trying to save her son - High Court rightly D concluded that the appellants caused fatal blows due to which the victim succumbed to injuries while on the way to hospital - Also, as per the medical evidence, the injuries received by the victim at the instance of the appellants were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. E Sentence I Sentencing - Murder case - Death caused due to assault with various weapons - Accused-appellants convicted uls.302 /PC and sentenced to life imprisonment - Plea of appellants for leniency in sentencing - Held: Not F tenable, since prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly, role of the appellants who caused fatal injuries - Conviction u/s. 302 being affirmed, the Court cannot impose a lesser sentence than what is prescribed by law, however, taking note of the age of appellant no. 2, he is free to make a representation to the -Government G for remission - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. The prosecution case was that the cows of the deceased had damaged the crops standing in the field of the accused-appellants and this bad resulted in a H 198 RAMSWAROOP v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 199 heated altercation between the parties; that thereafter the A accused-appellants and the other accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and carrying lathis and other weapons in their hands they chased the deceased and entered into his house and thereafter assaulted him with the said weapcms which ultimately proved fatal. PW5, B mother of the deceased, also allegedly sustained injuries while trying to save her son at the hands of the' accused. The trial court convicted the appellants and the other accused persons under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 452 and 325 read with Section 149 of IPC C and sentenced them to RI for 1 year under Section 148 of IPC, · 1ife imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and RI for 2 years under Section 452 and Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellants was confirmed D by the High Court, and therefore the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW-5, in her evidence, has stated that their E cows had damaged the crops standing in the field of .accused-Badri. She also explained that when accused- Badri was trying to take away their cows to the cattle pond, her son reached there and there was heated altercation between them. According to her, the incident F took place near their house and the fields of the accused are also situated opposite to her house: She explained that after entering into her house, the accused persons gave lathi blows to the deceased and when she intervened, she was also beaten up and her left hand wa~ broken. She specifically named the persons including G the present appellants who inflicted fatal blows on the chest of her son. It is further seen from her evidence that her injured son was taken to the Police Station and it was he who made a complaint about the occurrence and from H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 4 S.C.R. A there he was taken to the hospital for treatment, however, he died on the way to hospital. Inasmuch as PW-5 was an injured witness, who, in fact, tried to save her son at the hands of the accused, after going into her entire statement, this Court concurs with the conclusion arrived s at by the trial Court as well as the High Court insofar as the present appellants are concerned. The evidence of PW-5 and conviction based on her statement is acceptable and sustainable. PW-11, son·of the deceased, is also an eye-witness to the incident. He witnessed the c incident and narrated the whole story alleging the role played by each one of the accused but his statement was recorded after 14 days and no explanation was offered for the same. Even if the evidence of PW-11 is eschewed, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.