Skip to content


Dashrath Singh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 364 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1084; 1977CriLJ664; (1977)1SCC197; 1978(10)LC50(SC)
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 302
AppellantDashrath Singh and ors.
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh
Appellant Advocate S.N. Mosra and; M.M.L. Srivastava and; E.C. Agarwala, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Ram Panjeani, ; H.S. Oarihar and ; I.N. Shroff, Advs.
Excerpt:
- - it is clearly established by the evidence of these witnesses that the appellants assaulted the deceased in pursuance of their common intention to cause his death......tried before the additional sessions judge, sagar for the offence under section 302 of she indian penal code. the charge against the appellants was that they intentionally caused the death of one mullu singh inflicting injuries on him with kulhari and lathis. there were three eye-witnesses to the incident, but out of them only two were examined, namely, mangal singh and kallosingh. kallosingh was the son of the deceased while mangal singh was his nephew. mangal singh turned hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. kallo singh, however, supported the prosecution case and in clear terms implicated the appellants in the commission of the offence. the prosecution also led the evidence of phadali-singh. jhurre singh and sante kotwar for the purpose of proving the.....
Judgment:

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. The appellants were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar for the offence under Section 302 of she Indian Penal Code. The charge against the appellants was that they intentionally caused the death of one Mullu Singh inflicting injuries on him with Kulhari and lathis. There were three eye-witnesses to the incident, but out of them only two were examined, namely, Mangal Singh and Kallosingh. Kallosingh was the son of the deceased while Mangal Singh was his nephew. Mangal Singh turned hostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. Kallo Singh, however, supported the prosecution case and in clear terms implicated the appellants in the commission of the offence. The prosecution also led the evidence of Phadali-Singh. Jhurre Singh and Sante Kotwar for the purpose of proving the dying declaration made by the deceased to the effect that the appellants had assaulted him with Kulhari and lathis. This dying declaration was made by the deceased soon after the assault when these witnesses and others rushed to the scene of the offence in order to find out what had happened. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the strength of the evidence of Kallo Singh and the dying declaration made by the deceased convicted the appellants of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment. The appellants preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence but the appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Hence the present appeal by the special leave obtained from this Court.

2. We have carefully gone through the evidence of Kallo Singh, Phadali Singh, Jhurre Singh and Sante Kotwar and we do not see any reason to differ from the concurrent view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the High Court in regard to the appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses. It is clearly established by the evidence of these witnesses that the appellants assaulted the deceased in pursuance of their common intention to cause his death. Appellant No. 1 was armed with a kulhari and he inflicted serious injuries on, the head of the deceased, as is clear from the evidence of Dr. Khare, who performed the post-mortem examination. It is no doubt true that the other two, appellants were merely armed with lathis but the medical evidence shows that lathi blows were also given on the head of the deceased and it is evident that these two appellants shared common intention with appellant No. 1 to cause, the death of the deceased. Each of the appellants, must, therefore, be held to be guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. We accordingly convert the conviction of the appellants from one under Section 302 to that under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and maintain the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of them. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.


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