LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus GANGABISHAN @ VISHNU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
349
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
v.
GANGABISHAN @ VISHNU & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2393 of 2009)
JULY 27, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302/149, 325/149, 147, 148, 440 and 304 (Part I) –
Prosecution of nine accused u/ss. 302/149, 325/149, 147, 148 and
440 – Injured eye-witness to the incident – Dying declaration
recorded – Conviction by Trial court – High Court acquitted all the
accused except accused No.1 – Conviction of accused No.1 was
altered to one u/s.304 (Part I) – Appeal by State challenging acquittal
order – Held: Statement of the eye-witness as well as dying
declaration of deceased not corroborated by medical evidence – In
the facts of the case liability cannot be fastened on the respondent-
accused (accused Nos. 2 to 9) – In view of medical evidence it is
evident that accused No.1 was not having intention to commit murder,
but his act was to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause
death – Therefore, conviction of accused No.1 u/s. 304 (Part I) and
acquittal of rest of the accused by High Court was justified.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The general statement by PW-1 regarding
participation of all the accused with different weapons and causing
injury to the deceased as well as to himself is not duly corroborated
by medical evidence of PW-8 and autopsy surgeon PW-7. The
version of PW-1 is belied by medical evidence. In the dying
declaration the deceased has deposed that except accused No.1,
he was not knowing as to who had assaulted him but in the same
breath he has stated that he was assaulted by lathi by accused
No.3 and accused No.2. However, his version is not corroborated
by medical evidence. [Para 7] [353-E-G]
2. The dispute between the parties arose on account of
entrance of cattle and causing damage to the crops, as well as
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 349
349
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
use of way in which deceased and PW-1 sustained injuries. Taking
overall view of the matter, the High Court has acquitted accused
Nos.2 to 9. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, his overt act is
fully corroborated by the medical evidence, as well as the dying
declaration (Ex.P/4). Though, PW-1 sustained injuries caused
by hard and blunt object but according to his version, he was
assaulted by all the appellants, whereas he sustained only four
injuries and no injury was sustained by him by fire arm or sharp
edged weapon. Therefore, it would be difficult to fix the liability
for causing injuries to this witness by the respondents.
[Para 8] [353-G-H; 354-A-B]
3. Insofar as the deceased is concerned, he suffered gunshot
injury and entry wound was on back of his left thigh. In view of
the medical evidence, it would be easy to infer that if accused
No.1 was having intention to commit murder of the deceased and
used fire arm for that purpose, the injury could have been caused
on upper limb, above waist of the deceased. Thus, though the
accused No.1 was not having intention to commit murder of the
deceased but the act was to cause bodily injury which was likely
to cause death. Therefore, the High Court found that he would
be responsible for commission of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of
IPC. The High Court after scanning the entire evidence also
held that the respondents were not having an intention to commit
murder of the deceased. There is no infirmity in the judgment of
the High Court. [Para 9] [354-C-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2393 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2006 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of
2001.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Niraj Sharma, Ms. Priya Hingorani,
Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Kuldeep S. Parihar, H. S. Parihar, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
351
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is
preferred against the judgment dated 06.12.2006 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of
2001 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2000 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Shajapur, Madhya Pradesh, dated 4th December, 2001,
wherein the High Court has set aside the judgment and order of conviction
of the respondents under Sections 302/149 and 325/129 IPC against all
the respondents except respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has been
held guilty unExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.