VIJAY SINGH & ANR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 25-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 830 
VIJAY SINGH & ANR 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No 444 of 2008) 
MARCH 25, 2014 
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
s.326- Death of a person by injuries caused by several 
persons .. - Conviction and sentence u/s 302 of two upheld by 
HJgh Court-Held: Appellants had caused one injury each, 
whereas deceased had sustained five injuries -- According to 
D doctor, death had occurred on account of shock and 
excessive bleeding due to the injuries caused on the person 
of deceased -- Thus, death had not taken place as a result of 
injuries caused by appellants or any one of them -- Therefore, 
they cannot be held guilty u/s 302 simplicitor or with the aid 
of s.34 -- But their acts come within the mischief of s. 326 -
E Accordingly, their conviction is modified and they are held 
guilty uls 326 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 
years and fine of Rs.5,0001- each. 
The two appellants and 9 others were prosecuted for 
F committing the murder of the father of PW1 by causing 
injuries on his person. The trial court acquitted the said 
9 persons and convicted and sentenced the appellants 
u/s 302 IPC. The High Court confirmed the judgement 
and the order. 
G 
H 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the evidence of the eye-witnesses, 
it is evident that appellant no.1 had caused one injury to 
830 
VIJAY SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF MADHYA 
831 
PRADESH 
the deceased by ballam whereas appellant no.2 caused 
A 
one injury on the neck by farsa. They have also testified 
that other accused had also given farsa blows to the 
deceased. In the face of it, the High Court clearly erred 
in holding that excepting injury no. 1, all other injuries 
were caused by appellant no.2. [para 7] [834-C-E] 
B 
1.2 From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 
what is proved beyond doubt is that the appellants 
caused one injury each on the person of the deceased. 
It is relevant to mention that no charge u/s 34 IPC has 
C 
been framed against the appellants. PW-7 has deposed 
that during the post-mortem examination, he found 5 
injuries on the person of the deceased, and the death had 
occurred due to excessive bleeding and shock on 
account thereof. Thus, it cannot be said that only injury 
no.1 was the cause of the death. Therefore, the death had 
D 
not taken place as a result of the injuries caused by the 
appellants or any one of them and, as such, they cannot 
be held guilty u/s 302 IPC simplicitor or with the aid of 
s.34 IPC. The High Court, thus, committed serious error 
· by holding that injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death 
E 
of the deceased. [para 10, 11 and 12] [835-D; 836-A-F] 
1.3 However, the prosecution has been able to prove 
that the appellants have assaulted the deceased with 
ballam and farsa, which are dangerous weapons. 
F 
Further, the appellants had caused grievous injuries on · 
the person of the deceased. Their acts come within the 
mischief of s.326 IPC. Accordingly, the appellants' 
conviction is modified. Their conviction u/s 302 IPC is set 
aside and they are held guilty u/s 326 IPC and sentenced 
G 
to rigorous imprisonment for 1 O years and a fine of 
Rs.5,000/- each. [para 14-15] [836-G-H; 837-A-B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 444 of 2008. 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 3 S.C.R 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2007 of the 
B 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench Gwalior in 
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995. 
Rajesh for the Appellants. 
C.D. Singh, Sakshi Kakkar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. In the present 
C appeal by way of special leave, we are concerned with 
appellants Vijay Singh and Hari Singh. 
2. According to the prosecution, on 16th of June, 1992 at 
about 6.30 A.M., a report was lodged by the informant, Pohap 
Singh (PW-1 ), alleging that while he was at his house, his father 
D Bhagirath (deceased) was returning home after answering the 
nature's call and at that time, 11 accused persons including 
appellant no. 2 Hari Singh armed with farsa and appellant no. 
1 Vijay Singh armed with a ballam and other accused armed 
with axes surrounded him. Seeing this, according to the 
E informant, his mother Prema Bai (PW-2), his wife Sheela (PW-
3) and grandfather Jagannath (PW-6) went to rescue him, 
whereupon informant Pohap Singh was assaulted by lathi by 
one of the accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.