Laxman vs State Of M.P

Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. The accused are described as per their number during trial. Appellant Laxman (A1) was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Three others i.e. Chhattariya (A3), Richhu (A5) and Nawal Singh (A8) were convicted under Section 324 IPC. The High Court allowed the appeal so far as it relates to Bhoomaliya (A2), Kishan (A4), Bathilaya (A6), Banshiya (A7) and Rai Singh (A9) and acquitted them of all charges. Appellant Laxman was acquitted of the charge under Section 148 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Three accused who were convicted under Section 324 IPC, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

The accused Chatariya (A-3) shot an arrow which hit on the right shoulder of the complainant. The accused Laxman (A-1) shot an arrow which hit the deceased and on sustaining the injuries the deceased fell down and died immediately. The accused Reechoo (A-5) shot an arrow which hit Kal Singh (P-

10) in his back and the accused Naval Singh (A-8) also shot an arrow which hit Resala (PW-12). When deceased fell down, the accused run away. The complainant was having old enmity with the accused persons, due to this reason the accused persons committed murder of the deceased who was nephew of the complainant, and he also sustained injuries. The complainant Anar Singh reported the incident on the same day in writing at the police station, which is Ext.P-1. Medical examination of the injured persons was done. After investigation the charge sheet was filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khargon under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 324 I.P.C., which was registered as Criminal Case No.380/93. Case was transferred to the Sessions Court. After transfer of the case, the case was taken for trial.

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."

The above are only broad guidelines and not cast iron imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of the Court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second and the third stages so telescoped into each other, that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the second and third stages.

The fact situation shows that arrows were being shot from a distance, not with any accuracy. One of such arrows hit the deceased. As established by the evidence of eye- witnesses the appellant had shot that arrow. There was no sudden quarrel as stated by the appellant. The evidence shows otherwise.

Considering the background facts as noted above, appellant has to be convicted in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC and not in Section 302 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.