LexSTATE OF M.P. versus RAMESH @ CHHINGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 818 A STATE OF M.P. ~- v. RAMESH @ CHHINGE & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 2004) B FEBRUARY 3, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 4( _,. • Penal Code, 1860- s.302 and s.302 rlw s.34- Conviction c by trial court - High Court directing acquittal - Held: High Court did not discuss the eye witnesses' version or even the medical evidence - Matter remitted to High Court for detailed analysis of the relevant evidence and for decision afresh. D According to the prosecution, the accused- respondents armed with rifles and farsa chased the complainant party while they were proceeding towards the Court on bicycles and caused the murder of PW16's brother by firing gunshots at him and further attempted E on the life of PWs 1 and 16. Trial court after framing charges and on analyzing the evidence convicted respondents 1 and 3 u/s.302 IPC and respondents 2 and 4 u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted ... the respondents. Hence the present appeal. ' .,l F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: There were five witnesses examined by the prosecution who claimed to be eye witnesses. PW1 did not support the prosecution version. However PWs. 3 & G 16 fully corroborated the prosecution version. The High Court erroneously observed that there was no injury. In fact the evidence clearly established that the Respondent ,_ < 1 caused farsa injury on the head of the deceased. This )...-- was not noticed by the High Court. Apart from the fact H 818 STATE OF M.P. v. RAMESH @ CHHINGE & ORS. 819 that there was no discussion of the eye witnesses' A version, even the medical evidence has not been discussed. The High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable in view of the deficiencies highlighted above. Normally, this Court would have restored the judgment of the trial court. But in view of the fact that the B respondents have not appeared in spite of the notice, the matter is remitted to the High Court for detailed analysis ·-~ of the relevant evidence and fresh decision on merit afresh. [Para 5] [823-C-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c No. 661 of 2004. From the final Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2003 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in Crl. Appeal No. 286 of 1996. D Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. E 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of ~ offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal F ' • Code, 1860 (in short the · IPC') so far as respondents Ramesh(A 1 )andGurudayal(A3) are concerned and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC so far as the respondents Kailash (A2) and Pappu (A4) respectively are concerned. Additionally respondent Gurudayal wascharged for alleged commission of G offence punishable under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms ~ Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act'). 2. Prosecution Version in a nutshell are as follows: On 21.5.1993 at about 9 AM. near village Kurthara all the H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 1 S.C.R. A respondents caused murder of Ramavtar s/o Buddhasingh and attempted on the life of Rajesh alias Raje and Manik Singh. On 21.5.1993 in the morning Manik Singh was required to attend court for hearing at Bhind. For attending the Court he left village Kurthara alongwith his brother Ramavtar, his wife's brother and B his uncle-in-law Prahlad and Rajesh proceeding towards Court on bicycles. Prahlad was riding the first cycle and Manik was sitting on the carrier of the cycle behind him. Just behind Prahlad, Rajesh alongwith Ramavtar was following in another bicycle. When they were near the agricultural field of Ramkishan, C then Gurudayal armed with. 315 bore rifle, Kailash armed with single barrel .12 bore riffle, Pappu Yadav armed with single .12 bore rifle and Ramesh alias Chhinge armed with farsa were chasing them. When they reached near the complainant party Kailash fired from his .12 bore rifle. On hearing the gun shot 0 Ramavtar fell from the bicycle of Rajesh. As he got up, Gurudayal shot at him with .315 bore rifle. The bullet pierced through the body on the right side of chest and Kailash and Pappu Yadav also fired with an intention to cause death, but bullet had not hurt anyone. FIR is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.