State of M.P. Vs. Jaisingh and ors.

State of M.P. vs Jaisingh and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 22, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508658

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508658
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Rajeev Gupta and ;Usha Shukla, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 22, 2000
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 460/88
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 147; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Liability of Insurer - Third party insurance Held, The insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act, particularly Section 147 thereof. Thus, any person ot...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of M.P.

Advocate Ranbir Singh, Panel Lawyer

Respondent

Jaisingh and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307
Reported In: 2000(4)MPHT267

Excerpt

.....be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4)..........death and accused chand singh and ram gopal had sustained grievous injuries. on considering the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial, the trial court found that these eye-witnesses have failed in giving satisfactory explanation about the injuries sustained by chandan singh, ramgopal, nawal singh and chand singh and on the above findings, the trial court recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal.6. shri ranbir singh, the learned panel lawyer vehemently argued that the trial court has erred in discarding the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses (p.w. 1) kashiram, (p.w. 2) madan singh, (p.w. 3) karan singh and (p.w. 4) dilip singh, only on the ground that they have not given satisfactory explanation about the injuries sustained by the accused persons and chandan singh.7. the fact that chandan singh had sustained as many as 12 external injuries on 8-7-1984, and died homicidal death stands proved from the evidence of (d.w. 1) dr. g.t. khemchandani. (d.w. 2) dr. s.k. mishra proved that accused chand singh and ram gopal had sustained as many as 7 external injuries each whereas third accused nawal singh had sustained 3 external injuries, mewa bai, mother of respondent no. 1 jai singh was also found to have sustained 4 external injuries. the evidence of (d.w. 1) dr. g.t. khemchandani further establishes that accused chand singh had also sustained fracture of his skull bone and humerous bone. another accused ram gopal was also found to have sustained fractures of his left metacarpal bone and left tibia.8. (p.w. 1) kashiram, (p.w. 2) madan singh, (p.w. 3) karan singh and (p.w. 4) dilip singh in their deposition in the court have not given any acceptable explanation in regard to the above mentioned multiple injuries, some of whom were serious in nature, sustained by the accused persons. the trial court also took note of the fact that though there were other independent eye-witnesses of the incident but none of them was examined by.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Rajeev Gupta, J.

1. Appellant-State has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12-12-1987, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in ST No. 48/85, whereby all the 4 respondents-accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.

2. This incident of violence which had taken place on 8-7-1984, gave rise to the registration of two separate cases, at Police Station Ahamadpur, Distt. Sehore, at Crime Nos. 53/84 and 54/84. The case at Crime No. 53/84 was registered on the report of one Kashiram against as many as 5 persons, including the 4 respondents for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148 and 307/149, IPC for causing injuries to Madan Singh, Kashiram, Dilip Singh and Karan Singh. The other case at Crime No. 54/84 was registered on the report of respondent-Jai Singh against as many as 14 persons, including Madan Singh, Kashiram, Dilip Singh and Karan Singh, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147/148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC, for the commission of murder of Chandan Singh, father of the respondents Ramgopal and Nawal Singh, and for causing injuries to respondents Chand Singh, Ramgopal and Nawal Singh. Both these cases gave rise to two separate sessions trials, registered at ST No. 27/85 and ST No. 48/85.

3. The respondents-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded right of self-defence.

4. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, whereas the accused persons examined 3 witnesses in their defence.

5. The trial Court, on considering the evidence of (D.W. 1) Dr. G.T. Khemchandani and (D.W. 2) Dr. S.K. Mishra, found it proved that Chandan Singh had sustained as many as 12 external injuries in the same incident and died a homicidal death and accused Chand Singh and Ram Gopal had sustained grievous injuries. On considering the evidence of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial, the trial Court found that these eye-witnesses have failed in giving satisfactory explanation about the injuries sustained by Chandan Singh, Ramgopal, Nawal Singh and Chand Singh and on the above findings, the trial Court recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal.

6. Shri Ranbir Singh, the learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses (P.W. 1) Kashiram, (P.W. 2) Madan Singh, (P.W. 3) Karan Singh and (P.W. 4) Dilip Singh, only on the ground that they have not given satisfactory explanation about the injuries sustained by the accused persons and Chandan Singh.

7. The fact that Chandan Singh had sustained as many as 12 external injuries on 8-7-1984, and died homicidal death stands proved from the evidence of (D.W. 1) Dr. G.T. Khemchandani. (D.W. 2) Dr. S.K. Mishra proved that accused Chand Singh and Ram Gopal had sustained as many as 7 external injuries each whereas third accused Nawal Singh had sustained 3 external injuries, Mewa Bai, mother of respondent No. 1 Jai Singh was also found to have sustained 4 external injuries. The evidence of (D.W. 1) Dr. G.T. Khemchandani further establishes that accused Chand Singh had also sustained fracture of his skull bone and humerous bone. Another accused Ram Gopal was also found to have sustained fractures of his left metacarpal bone and left tibia.

8. (P.W. 1) Kashiram, (P.W. 2) Madan Singh, (P.W. 3) Karan Singh and (P.W. 4) Dilip Singh in their deposition in the Court have not given any acceptable explanation in regard to the above mentioned multiple injuries, some of whom were serious in nature, sustained by the accused persons. The trial Court also took note of the fact that though there were other independent eye-witnesses of the incident but none of them was examined by the prosecution.

9. On a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, we are satisfied that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in recording the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents-accused persons. The view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or impossible one. In this view of the matter, we do not find any scope for interference in this appeal against acquittal.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal against acquittal fails and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents-accused persons of the charges under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC, is hereby maintained.

11. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties State of M.P. vs Jaisingh and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Rajeev Gupta and ;Usha Shukla, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 a...

Criminal