BHAGIRATHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

604                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   12 S.C.R. 604               [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A                                 BHAGIRATH
                                        v.
                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       (Criminal Appeal No. 2301 of 2009)
B                             OCTOBER 23, 2018
            [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 to s.300 – Death caused in
      sudden fight without premeditation – Prosecution case was that
      victim was surrounded by the appellant-accused and other accused
C
      persons – In a verbal quarrel between the victim and the appellant-
      accused, a farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear of the victim
      was inflicted by the accused-appellant – It was alleged that other
      accused had also inflicted injuries – Victim died – Trial Court
      convicted the appellant-accused u/s.302 and other accused u/s.302
D     r/w. s.149, and sentenced all of them to life imprisonment – High
      Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant-
      accused, however, acquitted all other accused – On appeal, held:
      The injuries inflicted on the deceased was result of a sudden fight
      between him and the accused party – There was no premeditation –
      Appellant-accused had caused one injury to the deceased by farsi
E
      blow on the head which indicated that the appellant had not taken
      undue advantage of the deceased – The manner, the occurrence
      and the injury inflicted on deceased attracted exception 4 to s.300
      – Thus, the conviction of the appellant modified to s.304-I IPC and
      sentenced reduced to already undergone.
F
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. The case of the prosecution rests upon the
      evidence of PW-6 an injured eye witness, who has deposed about
      quarrel between the deceased and the accused party. PW-6 has
      also spoken about the infliction of farsi blow by the appellant on
G     the right side of the head near the ear of the deceased. When
      PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased, PW-6 also sustained injuries
      on his right hand. PW-6 was also injured in the occurrence is
      supported by the medical evidence and evidence of PW-2-Doctor.
      PW-6 being injured eye witness, his evidence stands on higher
H     footing. Presence of injuries on the person of PW-6 lends
                                      604
     BHAGIRATH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                            605


assurance to his testimony. There is no reason to disbelieve the         A
testimony of injured eye witness(PW-6). [Para 6] [606-F-H; 607-
A]
      2. The fourth exception to Section 300 IPC deals with death
committed in sudden fight without premeditation. The sudden
fight implies the absence of premeditation. In the instant case,         B
as the injuries inflicted on the deceased was in the sudden fight
between the deceased and the accused party. There was no
premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi
blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken
undue advantage of the deceased. The manner the occurrence
and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to          C
Section 300. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction of the appellant is modified under Section 304 Part-I
IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
[Para 7] [607-C-E]
      Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259:                   D
      [2011] 12 SCR 718 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2011] 12 SCR 718               referred to            Para 6
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal                  E
No. 2301 of 2009
      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2009 of the High Court
of M.P., Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2007.
      P. C. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Ambuj Aggarwal, Nitin Singh, Dr. (Mrs.)
                                                                         F
Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, B. N. Dubey, Advs. for the
Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment        G
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of
2007 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC and also the life imprisonment imposed
upon him.
                                                                         H
606             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2005 at about
      10.00 p.m. the deceased-Bherulal was surrounded by the appellant-
      Bhagirath (armed with farsi) and other accused persons (since acquitted)
      viz. Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai and Ramkunwar. In the wordy quarrel
      between the deceased and the appellant-accused Bhagirath is said to
      have inflicted the farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear. When
B
      PW-6 (Ramchandra) tried to save the deceased, he also sustained injuries
      on his right hand. Further, case of the prosecution is that all other accused
      (since acquitted) also inflicted injuries on the deceased-Bherulal. On
      completion of investigation, the appellant-accused and other accused
      were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 148/325/302 read
C     with 149 IPC.
             3. Relying upon the evidence of injured eye witness (PW-6), the
      Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC
      and other accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
      sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment. For the conviction
D     under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC, they were sentenced to
      undergo R.I. for one year.
             4. In the appeal before the High Court, the High Court confirmed
      the conviction of the appellant-accused and also sentence of imprisonment
      as aforesaid. So far as the other co-accused are concerned, the High
E     Court acquitted all of them holding that the charges against them have
      not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
            5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Agarwal, learned senior counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as Ms. Swarupama
      Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya
F     Pradesh, and also perused the impugned judgment and the materials on
      record.
              6. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW-6
      (Ramchandra), an injured eye witness, who has deposed about quarrel
      between the deceased-Bherulal and the accused party. PW-6 has also
G     spoken about the infliction of farsi blow by the appellant-Bhagirath on
      the right side of the head near the ear of the deceased. When PW-6
      tried to rescue the deceased-Bherulal, PW-6 (Ramchandra) also sustained
      injuries on his right hand. PW-6 was also injured in the occurrence is
      supported by the medical evidence and evidence of PW-2 (Dr. C.S.
      Gangrade). PW-6 being injured eye witness, his evidence stands on higher
H
      BHAGIRATH v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                                   607
                   [R. BANUMATHI, J. ]

footing. Presence of injuries on the person of PW-6 lends assurance to           A
his testimony (See: Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. reported in (2010)
10 SCC 259 ). We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve the
testimony of injured eye witness(PW-6).
       7. The High Court acquitted all the other accused, since fatal
blow is attributed to the appellant-accused. The question falling for            B
consideration is to the nature of the offence. As pointed out earlier, the
occurrence was at about 10.00 p.m., when there was wordy quarrel
between the accused party and the deceased – Bherulal that there was
a quarrel between them is established from the evidence of PW-6 also.
In the quarrel, the appellant-accused has inflicted injuries on the right
side of the head of the deceased measuring 15x2 ½ x 3 c.m. Though                C
there was another injury found on the deceased it was one contusion
measuring 10x2 cm on lower portion of right neck. The fourth exception
to Section 300 IPC deals with death committed in sudden fight without
premeditation. The sudden fight implies the absence of premeditation.
Even as per the evidence of PW-6, there was a wordy quarrel and in               D
that quarrel the appellant inflicted farsi blow on the head of the
deceased.As the injuries inflicted on the deceased in the sudden fight
between the deceased and the accused party. There was no
premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on
the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage
of the deceased. The manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on           E
the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is modified
under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone.
      8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302        F
IPC is modified as conviction Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence of
the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The
appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if his presence is not required
in any other case.
       9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.                                   G
Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.




                                                                                 H