Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

U.N. Singh, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4):

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '497758',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">U.N. Singh, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '497758',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Das and anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 497758 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '497758',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 34, 302 and 304-II; <a href="/act/51405/indian-evidence-act-1872-complete-act">Evidence Act, 1872</a> - Sections 32, 45 and 60; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 161',
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 1045/90',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Das and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Das and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal - Culpable Homicide - Sections 34, 302 and 304 part II of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Appellants convicted for offence under Sections 34 and 302 of IPC by trial court - Hence, present appeal - Held, in view of evidence produced on record, prosecution case substantiated by unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from oral dying declaration and also medical evidence - Thus, no room for any ambiguity as regards to complicity of appellants in commission of offence in question and Trial Court correct in recording their culpability - However, only serious injury mentioned in post mortem report is laceration of liver and all other injuries were found to be simple - Accordingly, nature of offence was 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 Part II of IPC - In such circumstances, conviction of appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC set aside - Instead appellants were held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 Part II of IPC - Appeal partly allowed - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'S.K. Nema, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-11-30',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Rajeev Gupta and ;U.N. Singh, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. </p><p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. </p><p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. </p><p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. </p><p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. </p><p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. </p><p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). </p><p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. </p><p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. </p><p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): </p><p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. </p><p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. </p><p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. </p><p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. </p><p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. </p><p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. </p><p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. </p><p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. </p><p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. </p><p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. </p><p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. </p><p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. </p><p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : </p><p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' </p><p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. </p><p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(1)MPHT151',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '497758',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/497758/ram-das-anr-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Karam Singh v. State of Punjab<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>U.N. Singh, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The appellants have preferred the instant criminal appeal against the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T. No. 25/90, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that the accused persons and deceased Kodulal were on litigating terms due to some land dispute. Deceased Kodulal had stay order in his favour. That apart, the accused were also prosecuted for setting the Khalihan of Kodulal, a fire. In this background the accused were looking for opportunity to take revenge against the deceased. Deceased Kodulal was a school teacher and he used to go daily to Mudera, the place of his working, by cycle. As usual on 1-8-89 the date of incident at about 11.00 o'clock in day lime deceased Kodulal was going by cycle to Mudera. On the way, in a lonely place pear Bhatia Ghati, both the accused - appellants way laid and caused him lathi injuries. Kodulal ran for life towards his village, crying for help but he was over powered and surrounded and again given merciless beatings with lathi causing as many as 12 injuries on his body. Hearing the alarm of Kodulal, Samna (P.W. 2) rushed to the spot and saw the actual assaults on the deceased. He was also threatened and chased but could not be over powered. In the meantime, Ashwani (P.W. 3) reached near Kodulal, who made an oral dying declaration to him that Ramdas and Sitaram have caused him lathi injuries. Deceased Kodulal asked him to bring water and by the time, he could reach him with water, Kodulal was dead. Samna (P.W. 2) who had run away from the spot informed the villagers about the incident. They alsoreached the spot to see Kodulal but he was dead. The report of the incident was lodged at 3.00 o'clock in the afternoon as Ex. P-l by Bhagwat Prasad. Prior to that at about 2.15 accused Ramdas had lodged a report Ex. P-20 that he had been assaulted with knife by Kodulal but on medical examination, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. He also mentioned the presence of Sitaram in that report. A challan was put up after investigation against the accused persons. They denied the assault, pleaded innocence and showed ignorance about the death of Kodulal. However, they did say that Kodulal wanted to kill them and, therefore, due to old enmity they have been falsely implicated. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of evidence on record found that the prosecution story does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence of eye witness as also the oral dying declaration and the admission of accused regarding their presence on the spot and further the motive for the offence proved that the accused alone caused lathi injuries to Kodulal, which resulted in laceration of his liver leading to his death on account of shock caused by haemorrhage. Further as per statement of the doctor, these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. We have heard Shri S.K. Nema, Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Govt. Advocate and Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Shri Nema, learned counsel led us through the records and tried to point out infirmities in the oral dying declaration as also the statement of Samna (P.W. 2) the eye witness on the ground that he has improved upon his statement under Section 161, Cr.PC. On the other hand, Shri Ahluwalia, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment on the ground that the prosecution case is based on an eye witness account and the oral dying declaration which get necessary corroboration from the medical evidence and the substantive evidence of the doctor. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scan through the evidence on records of the case. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Samna (P.W. 2) and the oral dying declaration given to Ashwani (P.W. 3) by deceased Kodulal. Samna (P.W. 2) deposed that on hearing the cry of Kodu Master, the deceased, he rushed to the spot and saw that accused Sitaram and Ramdas were causing lathi blows to him. It was a day time of 10 - 11 o'clock. He forbade the accused but he was abused and threatened, therefore, he had to leave the spot. He was chased but managed to escape. He reached the village and informed the wife of Pardeshi, Ramjiyavan Patel and Kotwar Kanchhedi about the incident. In cross-examination he stated that Kodulal was alive when he reached the spot first time. He narrated the incident to the father of Kodulal who also rushed to the spot accompanied by him, but by that time Kodulal was dead. Other people had already reached there. This witness has stood a long and rigorous cross-ex-amination. He reiterates that Kodulal was alive when he had reached the spot, first time. He is specific that he had seen the accused causing assaults to Kodulal from a distance of about 30 feet and the cycle of Kodulal was lying at a distance of one Sena (equivalent to 200 ft.). This witness clarified that he was chased by accused Ramdas and Sitaram but he stopped in Dasiyas's field when accused Ramdas threw his lathi to show him his stab wound. This witness stated in cross-examination that he had given this information to the police but he cannot say as why the police did not record it in his statement (Ex. D-1). ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Samna (P.W. 2) is supported by Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) brother of the deceased who deposed that Samna (P.W. 2) had told him that Kodulal was assaulted with lathi by Ramdas and Sitaram. The FIR also contained a mention that Samna (P.W. 2) had informed Bhagwat Prasad (P.W. 1) about the incident of assault by accused Ramdas and Sitaram. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. Another important witness of the case is Ashwani (P.W. 3) to whom the deceased had made the oral dying declaration. In his examination-in-chief he is specific that deceased Kodulal gave him the names of assailants Sitaram and Ramdas who assaulted him with lathi. He went to bring water for the deceased but by the time he reached him with water, Kodulal was dead. This witness denied that he did not talk to deceased Kodulal and that he was related to him. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. As regards the medical evidence, the post mortem report Ex. P-9 mentions the following injuries as hand written by Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4): ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(i) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the chest anteriorly placed which extend from right axillary 3 1/4' above right nipple towards left side of chest above - 2 1/2' above the left nipple transversely placed. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 11 => '<p> (ii) Contusion size 14' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection, there is huge hematoma present situated on the left side of chest below to the injury No. 1, which extend from lateral to body of sternum on left side of chest towards right side of umbilicus vertically placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 12 => '<p> (iii) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present underneath of injury situated on the left side of chest which extend from left shoulder towards, left nipple 3' below left nipple obliquely placed. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p> (iv) Contusion size 10' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated over left hypochondria! region. Bow shaped about 2 1/2' below the umbilicus. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p> (v) Contusion size 12' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematoma present in wound situated on the hack of right scapular region which extent from right scapular region towards right scapular region of right arm posteriorly placed. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (vi) Contusion size 5' x 1' x swelling present. On dissection hematomapresent situated on back of right scapula transversely placed about 2 1/2' below inferior angle of scapula right. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p> (vii) Contusion size 13' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on back of the left scapula region extend from inferior angle of left scapula towards right back. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p> (viii) Contusion size 6' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on the right side of the chest at the level of the 7th ICS of ribs right side. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath the margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (ix) Contusion size 7' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right side of chest at level of 8th ICS of ribs right side just below the injury No. 8 obliquely placed. On dissection huge hematoma present in wound and underneath margin of injury. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 19 => '<p> (x) Contusion size 9' x 1' x swelling present. Situated on right hypochondrial region about 1' below to the injury No. 9 which extend from right hypochondrial injury No. 9 towards right anterior superior Iliac Spine. On dissection hematoma present in wound. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p> (xi) Contusion (i) size 5' x 1' (ii) size 4' x 1' x swelling present. Situated 2' above right knee and on right patella. On dissection hematoma present in wound. No bony injury. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p> (xii) Lacerated wound size 2' x 1/2' x scalp deep. On dissection blood clots present in wound situated over parietal region of head and centre. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p> As per opinion of doctor S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), 'all the injuries were ante-mortem and might have been caused by hard and blunt object within a duration of 24 to 36 hours. The mode of death is shock caused by haemorrhage due to lacerated liver'. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>10. As regards the Court statement of Dr. S.A. Khan (P.W. 4), in his cross-examination he stated injury Nos. 1 to 11 to be simple in nature. There was no fracture in injury No. 12. He found laceration of the liver. ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>11. K.S. Thakur (P.W. 13) Police Sub-Inspector has proved the seizure. He is specific in cross-examination that he had sent a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate. Raghuraj Kishore (P.W. 11) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map as told by the witnesses. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>12. Ramjiyavan (P.W. 5) was declared hostile and he resiled from his police statement. Premlal @ Daddu (P.W. 6) corroborates that he went to the spot with Samna (P.W. 2). He also stated that Samna (P.W. 2) was chased by accused Ramdas. He further stated that when accused Ramdas threw the lathi, Samna (P.W. 2) stopped. This witness is also specific that Samna (P.W. 2) told him that Sitaram and Ramdas caused the injuries to the deceased. Puniya Bai (P.W. 7) stated that Samna told her that accused Sitaram assaulted Kodu and he was being chased by them. Both were carrying lathis. In cross-examination she told that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Ramdas and Sitaramto her. Banshdhari (P. W. 8) testified that he was told by wife of Pardeshi that deceased Kodu Master was lying and he was assaulted by accused Sitaram and Ramdas. In cross-examination, the witness clarified that wife of Pardeshi was also given this information by Samna (P.W. 2). This witness claimed to have told this fact also to Bhagwat and Ripusudan. Ripusudan (P.W. 9) testified that Samna (P.W. 2) gave the names of accused Sitaram and Ramdas to have beaten deceased Kodu with lathis. He further stated that father of Kodulal was wailing that accused Ramdas and Sitaram have caused lathi injuries to his son but he did not give the name of the person who disclosed the names of the assailants. This witness in cross-examination stated that he separately asked Samna (P.W. 2), who gave him the names of Ramdas and Sitaram to have caused injuries. Kanchhedilal (P.W. 10) also stated that Samna informed him that the deceased was done to death by accused Ramdas and Sitaram with lathi. When he reached the spot, Kodulal was dead. In the cross-examination he stated that Samna had come to his house and given this information and at that time there was no one from the neighbourhood. Samna (P.W. 2) told him that the accused persons had assaulted the deceased at Bhatiya. Uday Prakash (P.W. 12) is a witness of seizure of lathis from the house of Sitaram and Ramdas. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>13. We are, in view of the evidence as discussed above, of the opinion that prosecution case is substantiated by an unimpeachable eye-witness account which gets necessary corroboration from the oral dying declaration as also the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor. There is no room for any ambiguity as regards the complicity of accused persons in commission of the offence in question and the Trial Court is correct in recording their culpability. However, the facts of this case being akin to that of Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] the impugned judgment calls for our interference. The Apex Court in the case under reference held : ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>'The prosecution case is that on April 17,1978 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 2 and his brother, another witness, were present in their house. They heard an alarm of his brother, Nahar Singh, the deceased, who was being attacked. They rushed to the spot and they say that the appellant was beating the deceased with the lathi. P.W. 2 and other eye-witnesses went to the place of occurrence and the accused left the place. The deceased was found to be dead. A report was given to the police and the case was registered. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor P.W. 2, who conducted the post mortem found ten injuries. Some of them were abrasions. A lacerated wound was also found on the head but there was no corresponding internal injury. The contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs which caused his death. The doctor in his evidence has admitted that the fracture of the ribs could have in turn caused the rupture of the liver and the spleen. Under these circumstances it is difficult to hold thatthe appellant intended to cause the injuries to the liver and the spleen which unfortunately proved to be fatal. Having regard to the nature of the weapon used and the parts of the body on which blows were dealt, it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the death or intended to cause that particular injuries to the liver and the spleen. However, under the circumstances he must be attributed to have the knowledge that by dealing such blows he was likely to cause the death of the deceased in which case the offence is one punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In the result the conviction under Section 302, IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the High Court are set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Subject to above modification the appeal is dismissed.' ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>14. In the instant case, the only serious injury mentioned in the post mortem report is the laceration of the liver and all other injuries have been found to be simple. Whereas, in the case of Karam Singh (supra), not only lacerated wound was found on the head but there were contusions on the chest and injury Nos. 5 to 7 resulted in the fracture of the ribs, leading to rupture of the liver and the spleen. Accordingly, the nature of offence is found to be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' which is covered under Section 304 II, IPC. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>15. In the premises discussed herein above, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded against the accused/appellants for offence of murder under Sections 302/34, IPC are set aside. Instead they are held guilty for offence of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' under Section 304 II, IPC. As the accused/appellants are in jail from 1-8-89 and by now they have remained in custody for more than 12 years, they are sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.<p>',
	(int) 30 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 31
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109