Skip to content


Jheena and anr. Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1984CriLJ1375
AppellantJheena and anr.
RespondentState of M.P.
Excerpt:
.....reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - the challan as well as the first information report mention the age of ramsingh as 15 years......of dukali. all of them have been convicted of this offence and sentenced to life imprisonment. criminal appeal no. 1509 of 1980 is by jheena and ramsingh, while appeal no. 77 of 1981 is by bhojelal against their convictions and sentences. we are informed that the fourth convicted accused chokhe has not preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence.2. at the very out set, we shall dispose of the appeal of ramsingh. the challan as well as the first information report mention the age of ramsingh as 15 years. the entire material available on the record, therefore, indicates that ramsingh was definitely below the age of 16 years even at the time of his trial. accordingly, he was governed by the provisions of the m.p. bal adhiniyam and his trial and conviction according to the.....
Judgment:

J.S. Verma, J.

1. Four persons, namely, Jheena, Bhojelal, Ramsingh and Chokhe, were tried for the murder of Dukali. All of them have been convicted of this offence and sentenced to life imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 1980 is by Jheena and Ramsingh, while Appeal No. 77 of 1981 is by Bhojelal against their convictions and sentences. We are informed that the fourth convicted accused Chokhe has not preferred any appeal against his conviction and sentence.

2. At the very out set, we shall dispose of the appeal of Ramsingh. The challan as well as the first information report mention the age of Ramsingh as 15 years. The entire material available on the record, therefore, indicates that Ramsingh was definitely below the age of 16 years even at the time of his trial. Accordingly, he was governed by the provisions of the M.P. Bal Adhiniyam and his trial and conviction according to the general procedure were, therefore, invalid. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of Ramsingh son of Garabsingh for this reason alone. We also direct that he be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Bal Adhiniyam.

3. We shall now take up the case of the remaining two appellants Jheena and Bhojelal. There is ample evidence to support the conviction of both these appellants. The incident occurred at about 3 P.M. on 19.6.1980 in Village Tinsai, at a distance of 9 Kms. from police Station Umreth. The first information report (Ex. P. 1) was lodged at 8.15 the same evening by Bisanlal (P.W. 1) an eye-witness of the incident. It was mentioned therein that the deceased Dukali was assaulted in his field at about 3 p.m. that day when he was taking his meal and his mother and wife were sitting near him. The assailants were named as Chokhelal and Jheena armed with heavy sticks and Bhojelal armed with a Sabbal. in addition to a boy aged about 15 years, i.e. Ramsingh. The injuries proved fatal on the spot. The post-mortem conducted on the dead body of Dukali proved that he had sustained five lacerated wounds on his head and face, which had resulted in fracture of the parietal bones and right mandible. The head injuries alone were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of the skull bones.

4. The prosecution case against the I appellants Jheena and Bhojelal is amply proved by the eye-witness account of Bisanlal (P.W. 1), Mantabai (P.W. 2) and Munnilal (P.W. 3), Bisanlal (P.W. 1) is also corroborated by his prompt first information report. In addition, there is the testimony of Babulal (P.W. 4) to prove the extra-judicial confession made to him by appellant Bhojelal. The testimony of the eye-witnesses, supported by other evidence, is, therefore, sufficient to uphold the conviction of the appellants Jheena and Bhojelal. There is no ground to interfere in these appeals in their favour.

5. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1981 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of Bhojelal are maintained. In Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 1980, while the conviction and sentence of appellant Jheena are maintained, the conviction and sentence of appellant Ramsingh are set aside and it is directed that he be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Bal Adhiniyam.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //