RAM KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF M.P.

                 [2014] 7 S,C.R. 919


                  RAM KUMAR & ORS.                           A
                            v.
                     STATE OF M.P.
            (Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2010)

                      JULY 01, 2014
                                                             B
        [DIPA':< MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 - Conviction under -
Prosecution case that five persons armed with weapons
attacked the father of the complainant resulting in his death C
- Incident withessed by complainant - Previous enmity
between the parties - Conviction u/s. 3021149 and s. 148 and
sentenced accordingly - High Court altered conviction from
s. 3021149 to s. 302134 and acquitted the accused of the
charge uls. 148 - On appeal, held: Ample evidence to prove D
that accused persons with common intention, inflicted fatal
injuries on the deceased which resulted in his death -
Medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence of
prosecution witnesses - Corroborative statements of
prosecution witnesses, especially ocular witness and another E
independent eyewitness - Thus, no infirmity in the judgment
passed by the High Court - Evidence.·

     According to the prosecution case, five persons
armed with weapons attacked the father of the
complainant, resulting .in his death. The complainant F
witnessed the incident. Four hours prior to the incident
some quarrel took place between the complainant side
and accused side. FIR was registered. Investigation was
carried out. The trial court convicted all the accused u/s.
302/149 and s. 148 IPC and sentenced them accordingly G
for the offence committed. The High Court acquitted 'RS'
giving benefit of doubt. As regards the other accused, the
High Court altered the conviction from s. 302/149 to s.

                           919                               H
    920      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   302/34 IPC and acquitting the accused of the charge u/s.
    148 IPC. Hence, the instant appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: 1.1. There was enmity between the accused
B   and the complainant party and it appears that a criminal
    case was also pending between them. It is found from the
    record that soon after registering complaint, the 1.0.-PW
    14 reached the place of occurrence and remained there
    till 1.00 p.m. on the next date for investigating the case
C   and he also recorded statements of witnesses. At that
    point of time itself, complainant-PW 1 mentioned the name
    and role played by the appellant No. 3-'S' as recorded by
    the 1.0. in the case diary. The same stand was affirmed
    by the complainant-PW 1 in his testimony that five
D   persons attacked and caused injuries to his father and
    deposed that 'S', 'RK' and 'SM' wielded lath is on his
    father. Another independent eyewitness, PW-10 also
    affirmed the presence of appellant No. 3, 'RK', 'RM', 'C'
    af the scene of crime causing injuries to the victim.
E   Therefore, it can be said without any shadow of doubt
    that the appellant No. 3 as well as other accused
    participated actively in the crime and caused severe
    beatings to the deceased with their respective weapons/
    sticks. [Para 9] [925-A-E]
F      1.2. Considering the said injuries and fractures
  sustained by the victim, which are as dangerous as to
  cause death of a person, it is not necessary for the doctor
  to give a specific report to the effect that the injuries were
  sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. In the facts
G and circumstances, it can be said that the appellants in
  pursuit of their common intention caused serious injuries
  on the victim which resulted in his death. Therefore, the
  stand taken by the appellants that they should not be
  dealt with under Section 302/34, IPC cannot be accepted.
H [Para 11] [926-F-G]
          RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF MOP.                      921


     1.3. The stand consistently taken by the app~llants A
before the courts below and also before this Court that
there are various discrepancies and contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses cannot be upheld in
view of the corroborative statements of prosecution
witnesses, especially ocular witness PW-1 and another B
independent eyewitness PW-10. [Para 12] [926-H; 927-A-
B]

     1.4. On going through the facts and circumstances
of the case, there is ample evidence to prove that the
accused had, with common intention, inflicted fatal C
injuries on the deceased which resulted in his death. The
medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence
of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no infirmity
in the judgment passed by the High Court convicting the.
accused for the offences committed by them. The instant D
appeal has no merit warranting our interference under
Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 13, 14] [927-C-D]
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 375 of 2010.                                                  E

    From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2008 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal
No. 1467 of 2000.

    C. L. Sahu, Hema Sahu, Rajendra Sahu, Rishab Sahu,            F
Govind Ram Misra for the Appellant.

      Naveen Sharma, Swati B. Sharma (for Mishra Saurabh)
for the Respondent.
                                                                  G
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. The appellants, who were convicted
under Sections 302/149 and 148, IPC by the Trial Court and
whose conviction was altered by the High Court to Section 302/
34, IPC, have filed this appeal by way of special leave, having   H
    922      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A   been dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4th
    December, 2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
    Jabalpur passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2000.
          2. The facts in brief, as discerned from the prosecution
     story, are that on 8th November, 1999 at about 5.00 p.m., some
8
    quarrel took place between the complainant Hiralal (PW-1) on
     one side and appellant No. 2 (Sukha Manidas) and two other
    accused on the other side. The complainant then rushed to the
     Police Station, Amdara along with his father (Mohanlal Sahu)
    for lodging a report against the accused who quarreled with him.
C   While the complainant and his father (the deceased) were
     returning home from the police station about 9.00 p.m., in the
    midway, appellant No. 3 (Suresh) appeared suddenly from
    behind and attacked Mohanlal Sahu (father of the complainant)
    with a stick (lathi) giving severe blows, resultantly Mohanlal
D   Sahu fell down on the ground. Soon thereafter, the other
    accuseq, namely, Chintamani, armed with a sword, Sukha
    Manidas, carrying an iron rod and Suresh, Ramkumar and
    Ramesh with lathis in their hands appeared there and attacked
    Mohan Lal Sahu with their weapons/sticks giving continuous
E   beatings. The complainant shocked thereby and out of fear, took
    shelter behind some bushes and immediately after the accused
    left the scene of occurrence, the complainant along with a
    villager Ramkishore Sahu (PW 2) noticed that Mohan Sahu
    (deceased) was soaked in the blood and he succumbed to the
F   injuries caused by the accused. After informing about the
    incident to his brother and mother, the complainant went to the
    police station and lodged F.l.R. (Ext. P-1) against the accused
    persons.
       3. The police, after registering the case, took up the
G investigation immediately. The Investigating Officer (PW-14)
  arrived at the spot, conducted inquest, recorded statements of
  witnesses and arrested the accused persons. At the instance
  of the accused, the 1.0. recovered weapons used in the crime,
  prepared seizure memo and sent the body of the deceased for
H postmortem. Charge Sheet was accordingly filed against all the
           RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P.                     923
                [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
five accused under Sections 148 and 302/149, IPC and the         A
matter was thereafter committed to the Court of Session. The
appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

     4. At the trial, the prosecution, for establishing its case,
examined as many as 15 witnesses and the accused in their
                                                                  8
defence examined three witnesses in order to rule out the
charges against them. The Trial Court, on the basis of analysis
of entire evidence in the light of facts and circumstances of the
case, formed an opinion that the prosecution had been able to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. C
The Trial court eventually convicted all the accused and
sentenced them for the crime committed under Section 302/
149, IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-, in default, to further suffer imprisonment for two
months. Whereas for the offence committed under Section 148,
IPC they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year. D
However, both the sentences were directed to run
simultaneously.

       5. Having been aggrieved by the order of conviction and .
. sentence passed by the Trial Court, all the accused approached E
  the High Court in appeal. The High Court, after reconsidering ,
  the entire case on the basis of material on record and upon '
  reappreciation of evidence including that of Doctor (PW 7) who
. performed postmortem on the body of the deceased, came to
·the conclusion that the evidence of the complainant can be F
'found to be reliable against all the accused except one
  accused-Ramesh Sahu, The High Court, therefore, giving
  benefit of doubt, acquitted the said Ramesh Sahu from all the
, charges. Insofar as the conviction of other accused is
  concerned, the High Court altered their conviction from Section G
. 302/149, IPC to Section 302/34, IPC and accordingly the
  accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to
  pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous
   impriso~ment of two months. As far as the conviction under

                                                                 H
    924       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   Section 148, IPC is concerned, all the accused were acquitted
    of the charge.

        6. In the present appeal, only three accused i.e.
    Ramkumar, Sukha Manidas and Suresh, have challenged the
8   impugned order passed by the High Court.

       7. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the
  appellants before us is that the appellants were falsely
  implicated in the case. More specifically it was argued that the
  name of appellant No. 3-Suresh was not mentioned in the FIR,
C and he was intentionally implicated in the case by an
  afterthought. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not
  consistent and there are several contradictions and infirmities
  in each other's statement. The further argument advanced by
  the learned counsel is that the medical evidence does not
D corroborate the evidence of the complainant (eyewitness) to
  prove the charges levelled against the appellants. As the Doctor
  has :not specified that the injuries on the body of the deceased
  were sufficient to cause the death, application of Section 302,
  IPC is not proper. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that
E the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts
  below are erroneous, illegal and have to be set aside.

        8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
  vehemently contended that the finding of the learned Trial Judge
F that the appellants are guilty of the charged offences was based
  on a careful appreciation of entire material on record,
  supported by the ocular as well as medical evidence. The High
  Court also, after reappreciation of entire evidence found the
  accused guilty of the offences and accordingly affirmed their
  conviction. The appellants brutally killed the deceased for which
G they are justifiably punished and thus, the judgment of the High
  Court cannot be questioned. He finally submitted that there is
  no merit in this appeal so as to warrant interference of this Court
  and the same deserves to be dismissed.

H         9. We have heard learned counsel for both sides and also
             RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P.                   925
                  [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
                     ..       '

carefully gone through the material on record. Undisputedly, A
there was enmity between the accused and the complainant
party and it appears that a criminal case was also pending
between them. We find from the record that soon after
registering complaint, the 1.0. (PW 14) reached the place of
occurrence and remained there till 1.00 p.m. on the next date B
i.e. 9th November, 1999 for investigating the case and he also
recorded statements of witnesses. At that point of time itself,
complainant (PW 1) mentioned the name and role played by
the appellant No. 3 (Suresh) as recorded by the 1.0. in the case
diary. The same stand has been further affirmed by the c
complainant (PW 1) in his testimony that five persons attacked
and caused injuries to his father and deposed that Suresh,
Ramkumar and Sukh Manidas wielded lathis on his father. It
was specifically mentioned that Appellant No. 3 (Suresh) hit at
the kanpati of the deceased with his lathi. Another independent
                                                                 0
eyewitness, PW-10, (Tukodilal) also affirmed the presence of
Appellant No. 3 at the scene of crime causing injuries to the
victim by stick (lathi). He stated that he saw Ramkumar, Suresh
and Ramesh beating Mohan Sahu (deceased) with lathis and
another accused Chintamani was hitting the deceased with E
sword. Therefore, it can be said without any shadow of doubt
that the Appellant No. 3 as well as other accused have
participated actively in the crime and caused severe beatings
to the deceased with their respective weapons/sticks.

     10. We find from the autopsy report (Ext. P-10) that Dr.     F
Ganga Prasad (Pw-7), Block Medical Officer, PHC Amdara,
District Satna who conducted the postmortem on the dead body
of the deceased has recorded the following injuries on the body
of the deceased:
                                                                  G
      (i)    Sharp injury on the head just 3 cm above the hair
             line of mid forehead. Size is 4 cm x 2 cm. Blood
             clot present. Direction of wound is vertical.

      (ii)   A stab wound is present on the left side of the
             Temple, size is 1 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm.                  H
    926         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         (iii)   Right side of the arm bone humerous is fractured
                  at the level of upper 1/3 portion.

          (iv)    Right side of the fibula bone is fractured at lower
                  1/3 portion.
B         (v)     A lacerated wound present on the lateral aspect of.
                  the right leg at the lower 1/3 portion.

          (vi)    4 stab wound is present on the medial aspect of
                  the left leg. Size of each wound is 2cm x 1 Y2 cm x
c                 2 cm. It is produced by 4 teeth like instrument.

          (vii)   Multiple contusions bruise reddish blue in colour is
                  found on the both side of chest, on the abdomen
                  as well as on the back side.
D         (viii) Fingers of the both hands are semi flexed, left arm
                 is also semi flexed position.

        The medical evidence also revealed that in the internal
    examinatilln of the body it was found that skull, 10 ribs, right
E   humorous and right tibula were fractured, Liver, spleen and left
    kidney were ruptured. The Doctor (PW 7) opined that the
    deceased had died due to traumatic shock and neurogenic
    shock and the death might have occurred within 14 to 18 hours.

       11. Considering the afor,esaid injuries and fractures
F sustained by the victim, which are as dangerous as to cause
  death of a person, in our opinion, it is not necessary for the
  Doctor to give a specific report to the effect that the injuries
  were sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. In the facts
  and circumstances, it can be said that the appellants in pursuit
G of their common intention caused serious injuries· on the victim
  which resulted in his death. Therefore, the stand taken by the
  appellants that they should not be dealt with under Section 302/
  34, IPC cannot be accepted.

H         12. Another stand consistently taken by the appellants
             RAM KUMAR v. STATE OF M.P.                   927
                  [N.V. RAMANA, J.]
before the Courts below and also before us that there are .A
various discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of
prosecution witnesses also cannot be upheld in view of the
corroborative statements of prosecution witnesses, especially
ocular witness PW-1 and another independent eyewitness PW-
10.                                                               8

      13. On going through the facts and circumstances of the
 case, we are of the view that there is ample evidence to prove
 that the accused have, with common intention, inflicted fatal
 injuries on the deceased which resulted in his death. The C
·medical evidence completely corroborates the evidence of
 prosecution witnesses. We therefore find no infirmity in the
 impugned judgment passed by the High Court convicting the
 accused for the offences committed by them.

     14. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that this appeal D
has no merit warranting our interference under Article 136 of
the Constitution, and the same hereby stands dismissed.
Nidhi Jain                                    Appeal dismissed.