Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 1453 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

                                                              Non-Reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2009


PANNA LAL AND OTHERS                                        .... Appellants

                                   Versus

STATE OF M.P.                                               .... Respondent


                               J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1.    This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated  10.05.2007  passed
by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at  Indore,  in  Criminal  Appeal
No.1256 of 1997, affirming the judgment and order dated  11.12.1997  of  the
learned Additional District Judge,  Sardarpur,  District  Dhar  in  Sessions
Case No.46 of 1996.

2.    The present Appellant Nos.1 to 4 and  one  juvenile  were  alleged  to
have committed offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 of  the
Indian Penal Code by causing murder  of  one  Ramkunwarbai  and  for  having
caused hurt to Girdhari (PW-1), Satyanarayan (PW-2) and Hariram (PW-5).   At
the stage of trial the case of juvenile was separated  and  directed  to  be
dealt with by the Juvenile Court.  The  present  appellants  were  convicted
for the offences with which they were charged and sentenced  to  suffer  (i)
one year simple imprisonment  under Section 147 IPC (ii)  two  years  simple
imprisonment under Section 148 IPC (iii) life imprisonment for  the  offence
punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-,  in
default whereof to suffer simple imprisonment of one year  and  (iv)  simple
imprisonment of six months under Section 323/149  IPC.    The  judgment  and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned  Additional  District
Judge having been affirmed by the judgment under appeal, the same  is  under
challenge in this appeal by special leave filed by the  present  appellants.

3.    During the pendency  of  this  appeal,  in  view  of  the  certificate
regarding his age, Appellant No.4, was ordered to be released on  bail  vide
order dated 23.02.2011.  It may be noted that according to  the  certificate
said Appellant No.4 was also a juvenile as on the date of offence.

4.    According to the prosecution, Panna Lal, Anandi  Lal  and  Uday  Singh
i.e. appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein are sons of  Ranchhod.   Said  Ranchhod
had one more son, namely Shankar, whose whereabouts  were  not  known.   The
deceased Ramkunwarbai was wife of said Shankar.  It is  alleged  that  there
was a dispute between the parties regarding shares in the land of  Ranchhod.
 It is alleged that on 10.10.1995  at  about  2030  hrs.  said  Ramkunwarbai
along with Girdhari (PW-1), Satyanarayan  (PW-2),  Bhura  (PW-3)  and  other
persons went to collect the crop of soyabin  which  was  already  harvested.
When this party was about  300  feet  away  from  the  disputed  field,  the
accused party came armed with lathis, sword and  other  weapons  of  offence
and obstructed them.  It  is  further  alleged  that  a  dispute  arose  and
accused  party  struck  blows  on  the  deceased  Ramkunwarbai,   who   died
instantaneously.  Girdhari, Satyanarayan and Hariram also suffered  injuries
in the transaction/ altercation.  Girdhari  rushed  to  the  Police  Station
Amjhera, District Dhar at about 2330 hrs  and  lodged  FIR  (Ext.P/1).   Dr.
R.L. Patidar (PW-8) examined the injured persons.  The  post-mortem  on  the
body of Ramkunwarbai was performed  by  Dr.  Ashutosh  Sharma  (PW-15),  who
found the following ante-mortem injuries:
"Injury No.1 : Cut wound on the  right  side  of  frontal  brain  above  the
eyebrow which was from the middle of frontal brain to the right ear, size  -
15 x 4 cm x bone deep on which blood had clotted and between both  sides  of
wound there was gap.

Injury No.2: Cut wound on the right side of  skull  from  parietal  bone  to
temporal bone.  Size - 15 x 4 cm x bone deep,  from  this  wound  brain  was
coming out.

Injury No.3: Right upper jaw was fully  broken  and  the  entire  mouth  was
filled with blood.

Injury No.4: On the right side of the back from shoulder  to  groin  (kulha)
many blue marks.

Injury No.5: Lacerated wound - on the right ear, size 3X     x     cm  the
sides of which were irregular, on which there was clot of blood.

Injury No.6: Lacerated wound - on the left 'pinna' size 2  x 2   cm    cm
on which there was clot of blood.

Injury No.7: Bone was broken on the right side of the skul."

      According to the doctor the cause of death was shock due to  extensive
loss of blood because of injuries on vital parts of the body.

5.    After investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was  filed  and  on
committal of the case charges were framed by the Trial Court  to  which  the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that they  were  falsely  prosecuted.
According to them the land belonged to them.   Appellant  No.4  had  pleaded
that on the date of incident he was not on the spot.  The remaining  accused
claimed that the disputed land was in their possession, that they  had  sown
soyabin and had cut the  same  which  was  lying  in  the  field,  that  the
complainant party wanted  to  take  away  the  soyabin  forcibly,  that  the
complainant party was armed with deadly weapons and that  when  the  accused
party asked them not to take away the crop, the complainant party  assaulted
the accused party.

6.    Relying on the testimony  of  Girdhari  (PW-1),  Satyanarayan  (PW-2),
Bhura (PW-3), Luna (PW-4) and Hariram (PW-5) the learned trial  court  found
that the prosecution had successfully proved  charges  against  the  persons
accused and passed  the  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  as  mentioned
hereinabove.  The appellants  being  aggrieved,  preferred  criminal  appeal
No.1256 of 1997 before the High Court.

7.    It was submitted on  behalf  of  the  appellants  that  in  the  civil
litigation at an interim stage the land  in  dispute  was  found  to  be  in
possession of the appellants accused; that  the  complainant  party  had  no
right to enter on the land; that the appellants-accused  were  justified  in
exercising the right of private defence;  that  the  complainant  party  had
opened the assault in which the accused had  also  sustained  the  injuries;
and that the prosecution had failed to explain the injuries  on  the  person
of the accused-appellants.  After considering the entirety  of  the  matter,
the High Court found that the complainant party  was  about  300  feet  away
from the disputed land and as such no right  of  private  defence  arose  in
favour of the accused.  It was further found that the accused had not  shown
that there was any injury on the person of  the  accused.   Considering  the
evidence on record and believing the testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  some  of
whom were injured, the High Court affirmed  the  view  taken  by  the  trial
court and dismissed the appeal.

8.    The certificate, on the basis of which Appellant No.4 was  ordered  to
be released on bail, not having been seriously disputed, we declare  him  to
be a juvenile on the date the offence was committed and deem  it  proper  to
separate his case to be dealt with by  the  Juvenile  Court  in  appropriate
proceedings.  The order of sentence as  against  him  is  ineffective  as  a
result of Section 7A  of  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  for  Protection  of
Children) Act, 2000.  As regards the other  accused,  we  do  not  find  any
material and reason to differ from the view taken by the courts  below.   It
was submitted by Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for  the
accused-appellants that they were within  their  rights  in  exercising  the
right of private defence.  Ms. Bansuri  Swaraj,  learned  counsel  appearing
for the respondent-State, on the other hand, emphasized the  fact  that  the
incident in question had occurred 300 feet away from the disputed  land  and
also  stressed  on  the  nature  of  injuries  suffered  by   the   deceased
Ramkunwarbai.  We find force in her submissions.   The  injuries  show  that
the skull was broken as a result of injuries from  a  sharp  cutting  weapon
and the bone matter had come out through the gaping wound.  Considering  the
matter in its entire perspective we find that the present  appellant  Nos.1,
2 and 3 are guilty of the offences with which they are charged.

9.    We thus confirm the order of conviction and  sentence  passed  by  the
courts below as against Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and dismiss  their  appeal.

                                       ..............................J.
                                                 (Dipak Misra)

                                        .............................J.
                                             (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi,
March 23, 2015


ITEM NO.1C               COURT NO.12               SECTION IIA

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                     Criminal Appeal  No(s).  1453/2009

PANNA LAL & ORS.                                   Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

STATE OF M.P.                                      Respondent(s)


Date : 23/03/2015      This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
            judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.
                       Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
                       Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Adv.
                       Ms. Shreya Bhatnagar, Adv.
                       Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR

      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh  Lalit  pronounced  the  non-reportable
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  Dipak  Misra  and  His
Lordship.
      The appeal is dismissed insofar as  appellant  Nos.  1,2  and  3   are
concerned. Insofar as appellant No.4 is  concerned,  the  Court  passed  the
following order in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment:
"The certificate, on the basis of which Appellant No.4  was  ordered  to  be
released on bail, not having been seriously disputed, we declare him  to  be
a juvenile on the date the offence was  committed  and  deem  it  proper  to
separate his case to be dealt with by  the  Juvenile  Court  in  appropriate
proceedings.  The order of sentence as  against  him  is  ineffective  as  a
result of Section 7A  of  the  Juvenile  Justice  (Care  for  Protection  of
Children) Act, 2000."

      (R.NATARAJAN)                                 (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
       Court Master                                    Court Master
            (Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)