SUKHPAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five appellants in these three appeals were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 304 (Para II) read with Sections 149, and 330 IPC. THE allegations against them were that on September 17, 1982 they committed rioting and in course thereof caused bodily injuries to Phoola Devi of village Phera with a view to extorting confession from her which, ultimately resulted in her death on September 23, 1982. THE trial Court acquitted one of them namely, Sukhpal (the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 1989) and convicted the other four under Section 304 (Part II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Assailing the judgment of the trial Court the four convicts preferred an appeal and the State of Madhya Pradesh, in its turn, filed another appeal against the acquittal of Sukhpal and for enhancement of sentences of the other four appellants. In disposing of the two appeals by a common judgment, the High Court set aside the acquittal of Sukhpal and convicted him under Section 304 (Para In read with Section 149 IPC and dismissed the other appeal. THE above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these three appeals, which have been heard together.

(2.) SUKHPAL was Major and the other four appellants were constables of the Special Armed Force (S.A.F.), Gwalior and at the material time they were camping at Chhatarpur to look after the law and order situation there. At the time of her death Phoola Devi was a member of the Janpad Panchayat and Gram Panchayat and was a social worker of the same area. According to the prosecution the appellants used to indulge in anti-social activities and were responsible for gambling and illicit distillation. As their such activities had created a terror among the villagers Phoola Devi took up the cudgels against them. On August 5, 1982 the Company Commandant of S.A.F. was to visit the village and Phoola Devi had planned to submit a representation to him complaining about the illegal activities of the appellants. This visit was, however, cancelled. It is alleged that the appellants had learnt about such move of Phoola Devi.

(3.) TO sustain the charges levelled against the appellants the prosecution examined Devi Dayal (P.W. 1), Dasharath Prasad (P.W. 2) and Babu (P.W. 3) as eye-witnesses, besides two doctors and the Investigating Officer, On appreciation of the medical evidence the trial Judge firstly held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing beyond doubt that Phoola Devi met with her death due to rupture of per liver caused by an injury on her chest. After recording the above finding the trial Judge considered and discussed the evidence of the eye-witnesses and held that owing to the assault by four of the appellants (except Sukhpal) with lathi and stick she sustained the above injury, besides others. As regards Sukhpal, the trial Judge held that though he was present on the spot he was not in any way liable for the death of Phoola Devi as he did not take part in the assault. After reappraising the evidence the High Court concurred with all the findings recorded by the trial Judge against the four convicted appellants; and in reversing the acquittal of Sukhpal the High Court observed that merely because he did not give any beating to the deceased it did not mean that his case was distinguishable from the others for, admittedly, the other four appellants were working under his command. According to the High Court when the evidence of eye-witnesses unmistakably pointed to the fact that all the accused persons went to the house of Phoola Devi together to search the same and when Sukhpal headed the group he ought to have, if he was not a party to the assault, stopped such beating. As he did not take any such step it was evident that he had approved of the action of the other members of his group who were working under his direction and, therefore, he was also a party to such assault. With the above findings the High Court recorded the impugned conviction against him.