LexVEERAN & ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 5 S.C.R. 300 VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2011) APRIL 13, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 300 exceptions 1, 4; s.304 Part I 1149, s. 3231149, s. 147 and 148 - Altercation between the C parties, resulted in fatal blow to victim and injuries to prosecution witnesses- Conviction uls. 3021149, 147 and 148 by courts below - On appeal held: Appellant No. 1 inflicted fatal blow to victim - No specific overt acts attributed to the remaining three accused except omnibus statement - Death o caused by the accused was not pre-meditated as the incident took place as a result of sudden and grave provocation - Accused had no common intention to cause death of the victim as only appellant No. 1 had hit the victim with Gandasa on head, without there being any pre-meditation amongst E themselves - Injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death - Some of the accused also sustained injuries on their persons, which were caused by complainant party - Thus, the instant case falls under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to s. 300 - Appellant No. 1 held guilty for F commission of offences u/ss. 304 Part I 1149, 147, 148 and awarded sentence already undergone that is around 15 years - Other accused held guilty for commission of offences ulss. 3231149, 147 and 148 and awarded sentences already undergone which is more than 2 J1 years. G The parties were in inimical terms. On the fateful day, altercation between the parties, resulted in fatal blow to 'D' and injuries to prosecution witnesses who tried to intervene when the accused were inflicting the injuries to H 300 .VEERAN & ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. 301 the complainant party. After altercation between the A parties, appellant No. 1, accused-0, R, L, A and G went back to their house and came out armed with Gandasa, Farsa and Lathis. Eight accused were charged and prosecuted for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149 and 325 IPC. Accused nos.6 and B i wer.:i acquitted. The remaining six accused were convicted for the said offences. They filed appeal before the High Court. 'R' and 'L' expired during the pendency of the appeal. As regards the remaining four accused, the High Court convicted them under Sections 302/149, 147 c and 148 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and one year each respec:tively for the commission of the said offences. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court D MELD: 1.1 Appel:ant No. 1 had caused a fatal injury to 'D' and other injuries were not grievous. It has neither been disputed nor challenged that deceased 'D' had met with homicidal death. [Para 10] [307-C-D) E 1.2 Perusal of the record shows that in the same incident some of the accused had also sustained injuries or. their persons, which were c~used by the complainant t>arty. Thes3. injuries were proved by OW 4 and OW 5- c!cctors by their injury reports. [Para 11] [307-E-F] 1.3 Evid3nce of all the three main eye witnesses, P\11/- 6, PW-7 and PVIJ-12 is consistent that appellant No. 1 had ... r ilit the deceased with Gandasa and the blow inflicted by him had proved to be fatal. As regards other acc.used, G t!1era appears to be omnibus statement that they all had hit the deceased but details of the same have not been • :;;iven specifically. No spec:fic overt acts have been attributed to the other remaining three accused except .H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A omnibus statement. Thus, from the analysis of the said evidence, it is clear that it was appellant No. 1 who had caused the fatal blow on the person of deceased. [Paras 12 and 13] [307-H; 308-A-E-F] 8 1.4 A close look at the evidence of the main witness- PW 12 makes it clear that the accused were not already armed with lethal weapons to cause the death of 'D'. As per his own admission, when they reached in front of the house of 'R', wives of accused started abusing them, C meaning thereby, at that time none of the accused were there. [Para 14] [308-G] 1.6 Under the scheme of IPC, "culpable homicide" is the genus and "murder" its species wherein all "murder" is "culpable homicide" but all "culpable homicide" is not D "murder". [Para 16] [309-E] 1.7 In the instant case, it can be inferred that the fight between both the parties was not pre-meditated as the incident took place due to heated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.