Pooranlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2) In order to appreciate the issues arising in the appeal, relevant facts need mention infra.

3) In short, the case of the prosecution on which the trial against the appellants and other three accused proceeded was as follows:

5) At that time, two sons of Hariya, namely, Ramesh (PW-1) and Banshi (PW-2) were also reached there on their cycle as they were also going to earn their livelihood in nearby village. One Daryao Singh(PW-3)-a 3 villager, who was going on his tractor to fill diesel in his tractor, also reached there.

6) These persons witnessed the incident of beating and, therefore, ran towards Hariya to save him from the assailants. The assailants, on noticing that a group of persons is fastly approaching at the scene of occurrence, ran away from there leaving injured Hariya lying on the roadside.

7) Ramesh (PW-1), Banshi (PW-2), Daryao Singh (PW-3) and some other persons took Hariya to Police Station, Khurai in a tractor where he lodged the FIR (Ex. P-33). Hariya was then taken to the Civil Hospital, Khurai for medical treatment. Dr. Rakesh Saxena (PW-11) found 11 injuries on the body of Hariya. In the meantime, the SHO Police Station, Khurai brought Naib Tahsildar, B.P. Shukla (PW-9) in 4 the Hospital for recording dying declaration of Hariya. It was accordingly recorded (Ex.P-20).

9) According to the prosecution, the assailants and Hariya belonged to the same caste. There was previous enmity between one assailant-Gaya Prasad and Hariya due to some verbal utterances, which were exchanged between both of them in a marriage wherein the Samaj Panchayat of which Hariya was the head, had imposed some fine on Gaya Prasad. It is due to this reason, this incident took place.

11) The five accused persons were accordingly charged with the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 and 342 IPC. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and took a stand that they have been falsely implicated in the case. So far as Pooranlal, Shyamlal and Ramlal are concerned, they took a plea that they never had any enmity with the deceased because they reside in some other village.

13) Challenging the order of acquittal, the State filed appeal before the High Court. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State. The High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused, namely, Mahindra, Shaymalal and Ramlal but reversed the order of acquittal against two accused persons, namely, Pooranlal and Gaya Prasad and convicted both the accused under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years’ and a fine of Rs.2000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment.

25. The incident had occurred nearly 16 years before and the R-1 Pooranlal and R-2 Gayaprasad were released on bail during pendency of this appeal. In these circumstances, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years with 10 fine of Rs.2000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

26. Accordingly, the appeal against acquittal of Mahendra, Shyamlal and Ramlal is hereby dismissed, but stands allowed in part against Pooranlal and Gayaprasad. While affirming their acquittal in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 302 read with 149 and 342 of the IPC, we convict R-1 Pooranlal and R-2 Gayaprasad for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC. Each one of them is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.”

21) The evidence available on record, in our opinion, did establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants’ case was capable of being separated from other three accused with a view to find out their role in the incident as against the other three accused.

23) In the facts and circumstances of the case as taken note of supra, we are of the considered opinion that these factors were rightly taken into consideration for holding the appellants guilty for committing offence falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC.

26) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed resulting in upholding of the order of the High Court.

27) As a result thereof, the bail granted to Gaya Prasad (appellant No.2) by this Court’s order dated 13.04.2009 stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender and undergo the remaining jail sentence 14 awarded by the High Court in case, he has not so far undergone awarded sentence.

28) So far as Pooranlal (appellant No.1) is concerned, since he had not applied for bail, it may be that during this period he may have completed his full period of jail sentence. Since learned counsel for the appellants is unable to make any statement on this issue, we are of the view that the Trial Court will verify this fact from jail records and other relevant material and after ascertaining as to how much jail sentence Pooranlal had already undergone out of five years, will accordingly pass necessary orders.

October 25, 2017 15