MAUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) Annoyed by the worship of a deity installed in a disputed land, carried out by one of the injured; the accused, on the instigation of the person who was is possession of the land, reached the house of the deceased with weapons and questioned them resulting in a scuffle ending with the death of the grandfather and injuries to the three grandchildren; as per the story of the prosecution. Nine accused were arrayed in the FIR but only six, against whom charge was laid by the Trial Court of which one died during the proceedings. Three, the appellants herein were charged with offences under Ss. 302, 323 & 324 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code [For brevity 'IPC']. Two were charged under Ss. 324, 341 and 506 read with Sec. 34; who were acquitted by the Trial Court. The three appellants herein were convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC, for the homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000.00 each. They were also convicted under Ss. 323 & 324 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, for the injuries sustained by the grandchildren of the deceased, imposing a sentence of 6 months and 1 year respectively. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court leading to the conviction and affirmed the sentence imposed.

(3.) On appeal before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sh. Vikrant Singh Bais argued that there was no premeditation and no intention to cause death; not even the remotest knowledge of an injury being caused which was likely to cause death. In fact, the deposition of ocular witnesses indicate that the accused carried cutting weapons. However, the injury on the deceased, even according to the Doctor who examined him at the first instance indicates that there were no incised injuries. It was also stated that the injury which resulted in death, could have been caused by an accidental fall. In the totality of the circumstances it is clear that if at all the accused are found guilty of the alleged crime, they can only be convicted under Part II of Sec. 304.