- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagpati v. State Of M.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns two brothers, Jagpati and Ram Krishna, both labourers, who were originally convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the death of their neighbour, Balkrishna. On 29 September 1977, an early-evening quarrel over drawing water erupted between the deceased’s son and the sons of appellant Jagpati. After bystanders intervened, the appellants allegedly returned armed with a ringed stick (balli) and an ordinary stick (danda) and assaulted the deceased, inflicting two head injuries and several bruises. Balkrishna died the following day. His wife (PW 1) lodged a complaint; the matter was initially registered under Section 307 IPC and later converted to a murder case when the victim succumbed.
The prosecution examined five eyewitnesses; two independent witnesses turned hostile, leaving the testimony of the deceased’s wife, daughter, and son (PWs 1, 3, 17). The Sessions Court convicted both accused of murder, a decision affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The present appeals challenge those concurrent findings. Delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 3, 17) was trustworthy enough to sustain a conviction.
- Whether the appellants’ acts, committed with blunt weapons after a trivial quarrel, constituted the offence of murder under Section 302/34 IPC or a lesser offence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The only supporting eyewitnesses were the deceased’s relatives; their testimony was interested and therefore unreliable.
- Even if the prosecution version were accepted, the facts did not make out an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC because there was no pre-meditation or intention to cause death.
State's/Prosecution's Arguments
- The evidence of PWs 1, 3, and 17 was consistent and should not be discarded merely because they were related to the deceased.
- The head injuries, coupled with the doctor’s opinion that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, warranted a conviction for murder.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court carefully reviewed the record and found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs 1, 3, and 17 solely on the ground that they were related to the deceased; their accounts were deemed credible.
However, on the nature of the offence, the Court observed:
- The incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel over a trivial matter, with no prior enmity or evidence of pre-planning.
- Both weapons used were blunt. Each accused delivered only one blow: an open injury (3″ skin-deep) in the centre of the head and a swelling on the forehead. The fatal fracture of the skull was attributed to these injuries.
- Although technically clause “thirdly” of Section 300 IPC could apply, the Court emphasised that intention to inflict an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death must be established, which the surrounding circumstances did not support.
- The appellants, nevertheless, had knowledge that their acts were likely to cause death, satisfying the requirements of Section 304 Part II IPC.
Holding and Implications
Convictions under Section 302/34 IPC set aside; both appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment each. Appeals partly allowed.
Implications: The decision reduces the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, limiting punishment to a fixed term rather than life imprisonment. The ruling is fact-specific and turns on absence of intention; it sets no new legal precedent but illustrates the Court’s nuanced application of Section 304 Part II when intention to cause death is not proven.
Order
1. Delay condoned. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants in both these appeals were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and their appeals were dismissed by the High Court. The prosecution case is as follows. Both the accused are brothers and are labourers. The deceased lived in the neighbourhood. PW 1 is his widow, PW 3 is his daughter and PW 17 is his son. On September 29, 1977 at about 6-7 p.m a quarrel took place between the son of PW 1 and the deceased and the sons of appellant Jagpati over drawing water. Some people present there intervened and thereafter the appellant, Jagpati and his brother, Ram Krishna, the other appellant came back armed with balli, a ringed stick and danda, an ordinary stick and it is alleged that they assaulted the deceased, Balkrishna. He received two injuries on the head and some bruises on the other parts of the body. PW 1, wife, lodged a report at Chashai Outpost. The case was registered under Section 307 IPC. The injured was taken to the hospital. He died on the next day. An inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. Dr Mishra, PW 16 conducted the post-mortem. The accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation a challan was filed. The prosecution examined PWs 1, 2, 3, 9 and 17 as eyewitnesses. Out of them PWs 2 and 9, the independent witnesses, turned hostile. The remaining three witnesses, namely, wife, daughter and son of the deceased deposed that there was a quarrel in the evening between the appellant Jagpati and the deceased and some people present there intervened. Thereafter, Jagpati went back and returned along with his brother armed with balli and danda, respectively. Thereafter, they dealt the blows on the head. The main submission before the courts below was that the remaining witnesses are all interested and their evidence could not be relied upon. The same submission is put forward before us also. We have gone through the record and we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 17.
2. Before the courts below it was also submitted that even if the prosecution case is to be accepted, even then an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is not made out. Coming to the nature of the offence, we find it difficult to hold that an offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 is made out. There was no previous enmity. There was a scuffle and a sudden quarrel that preceded the occurrence. No doubt the witnesses say that 15-20 minutes later the accused Jagpati accompanied by his brother, Ram Krishna came to the scene of occurrence. It can be seen that because of the trivial incident the subsequent occurrence appears to have taken place.
3. Now coming to the occurrence as such, the two weapons are blunt weapons — one is a ringed stick and the other is an ordinary stick. The first doctor, PW 5 who examined the deceased found an open injury 3″ skin deep in the centre of the head and another swelling of about 3″ in width on the forehead. The other injuries are all bruises on the chest and the arm. It is the injury on the head that resulted in the fracture of the skull causing the death. No doubt the doctor had stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He opined that the external injuries No. 2 and 3 could have resulted in the fracture. One is attributed to Jagpati and another is attributed to Ram Krishna. From the facts stated above it is clear that Ram Krishna had absolutely no immediate motive and even the appellant, Jagpati also because of the trivial quarrel that took place went and beat the deceased. Under these circumstances, we find it difficult to hold that these two accused intended to cause that particular injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It can also be seen that each one of the accused is attributed one blow and the injury that is said to have been caused by Ram Krishna is only a swelling. The other fact is that the deceased died on the next day.
4. In a case of this nature no doubt clause thirdly can be attracted in a technical manner, but what the courts have to see is whether there was an intention to cause that particular injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The courts have to take into consideration the nature of the injuries caused and the attendant circumstances.
5. Having given our earnest consideration, we think that it is not a case where Section 302 IPC is attracted. However, in causing those two injuries, one swelling and one skin-deep injury the accused must be attributed the knowledge that they were likely to cause death. In such an event, the offence committed by them would be one punishable under Section 304 Part II with Section 34 IPC.
6. Accordingly, we set aside the convictions and the sentence of Jagpati (appellant in Crl. A. No. 795 of 1980) and of Ram Krishna (appellant in Crl. A. No. 49 of 1981) under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life. Instead we convict them under Section 304, Part II, IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentence each of them to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
7. The appeals are partly allowed.
Alert