Supreme Court

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kalicharan and Ors.

MANU/SC/0800/2019

31.05.2019

Criminal

Accused can be held guilty for offence of murder even on a single blow on vital part of victim’s body causing his death

Present appeal is against impugned judgment passed by the High Court whereby the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the original Accused and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court convicted the Respondent-original Accused for commission of the offence under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, insofar as Accused Kalicharan, Amar Singh, Kedar, Abhilakh, Ramgopal, Tejsingh, Gangaram and Vedari are concerned, is not required to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that, there was a free fight and the role attributed to the aforesaid accused, the High Court has rightly acquitted the aforesaid Accused for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149 and 325/149 of IPC. The same is absolutely in consonance with the decision of this Court in the case of Kanwarlal v. State of M.P. Therefore, the present appeal qua the aforesaid Accused (except the accused-Ramavtar) deserves to be dismissed.

Regarding impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court altering the conviction of the accused-Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC is concerned, it is required to be noted that, the fatal blow was caused by the said accused-Ramavtar. The deceased sustained the injury on his head which was caused by the Accused Ramavtar. The said injury caused by the Accused Ramavtar was on the vital part of the body i.e. head and proved to be fatal. Merely because the Accused Ramavtar caused the injury on the head by the blunt side of Farsa, the High Court is not justified in altering the conviction to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

As held by this Court in catena of decisions, even in a case of a single blow, but on the vital part of the body, the case may fall under Section 302 of the IPC and the Accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that, it was a case of free fight, considering the fact that the weapon used by the Accused Ramavtar was Farsa and he caused the injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head which proved to be fatal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in altering the conviction of the Accused Ramavtar from Sections 302/149 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the medical evidence and the manner in which the incident took place, the Accused Ramavtar should have been held guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. To that extent, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The conviction of the Accused Ramavtar is to be altered from Section 304 Part II to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

Tags : Sentence Alteration Legality

Share :