UMA SHANKAR GAUTAM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 09-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 397 
UMA SHANKAR GAUTAM 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
{Criminal Appeal No.1451 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 9, 2014. 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.147 and 3021149 - Prosecution 
under - Of six accused - Conviction by trial court - High 
Court confirmed conviction of 3 accused, acquitted 2 accused C 
and case against one accused stood abated - Appeal by 
accused No. 1 - Plea of acquittal on parity with the acquitted 
accused - Held: It is always open to the court. to distinguish 
the case of acquitted accused with the convicted ones ~ High 
Court rightly declined to acquit accused No. 1 on the principle 
D 
of parity. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has given benefit of doubt 
by acquitting accused Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that 
E 
no injury of lathi was found on the person of the 
deceased and the names of accused Nos. 5 and 6 were 
not mentioned in FIR and they could have been falsely 
implicated later on account of enmity. The High Court had 
elaborately considered the role and overt act of appellant/ 
F 
accused No. 1 and held that his presence stood 
established not only by the ocular testimony but also in 
the first intimation, his name is specifically mentioned and 
concluded that he was sharing common intention with 
accused Nos. 3 and 4, who were armed with barchhi arid 
G 
farsa respectively and confirmed their conviction and 
sentence. [Para 11] [403-8-E] 
2. The appellant-accused No. 1 cannot be acquitted 
397 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A on parity with accused Nos. 5 and 6. It is always open to 
the Court to differentiate the accused who had been 
acquitted from those who had been convicted. The High 
Court rightly declined to acquit the appellant on the 
B 
c 
principle of parity. [Paras 12 and 13] [403-F-G; 404-C] 
Gangadhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 
381: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 183 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 183 
relied on 
Para 12 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1451 of 2009 . 
. ' 
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2008 of the High 
o Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 1998. 
Mahavir Singh, Aakriti Dawar (AC.) Kuldip Singh for the 
Appellant. 
Samir Ali Khan, Aditya Narayan Singh, Mishra Saurabh for 
E the Respondent. 
• 
~ 
I 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the 
F judgment and order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1in Criminal Appeal No.1537 
of1998. 
· 
· 
2. The appellant herein is accused no.1 and he along with 
five other accused were tried in Sessions case no.193/1995 
G ori the file of Sessions Judge, District Shahdol and the trial 
court convicted them for the commission of offences under 
Section 147 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and 
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
one year for the first offence arid each of them to undergo 
H imprisonment for life for second offence. Aggrieved by the 
UMA SHANKAR GAUTAM v. STATE OF MADHYA 
399 
PRADESH [C. NAGAPPAN, J.] 
same ·au the accused preferred Criminal Appeal no.1537 of 
A 
1998 to the High Court of judicature at Jabalpur. During the 
pendency of appeal appellant no.2/accused no.2 Ramashankar 
died and the appeal preferred by him stood abated. The High 
Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of accused no.1 
Umashankar, accused no.3 Shivashankar and accused no.4 
B 
Gaurishankar and at the same time acquitted accused no.5 
Vasudev and accused no.6 Gyandev by allowing the Criminal 
Appeal in part. Challenging his conviction and sentence, 
accused no.1 Umashankar has preferred the present appeal. 
3. Briefly the case of the prosecution is narrated as follows 
C 
: PW7 Savitri Bai is the mother of Kalua @ Ramnath and PW9 
· Usha Bai is his wife. On 19.7.i995 at about 8-8.30 a.m. the 
appellant herein/accused no.1 along with five other accused 
had gone to the house of Nan @ Lakhan situated at village 
Dindori Tola Bamhani and were hurling abuses in the courtyard. 
D 
Nan was not in the house at that time and upon hearing the 
noise Kalua @ Ramnath went to Nan's house. Accused no.3 
Shivashankar armed with barchhi, accused no.4 Gaurishankar 
armed with farsa and accused nos.1,2,5 and 6 armed with lathis 
attacked Kalua with the said weapons and inflicted injuries on 
E 
him. PW7 Savitri Bai tried to save his son Kalua and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.