SUKHPAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five appellants in these three appeals were tried for offences punishable under sections 147, 304 (Part 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 sale 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 (Part II) 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 a Major and the other four appellants were constables of the Special Armed Force (S.A.F.), Gwalior and at the material time they were coming 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 antisocial 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.) THE appellants completely denied the charges levelled against them. Their contention was that on September 17, 1982 an unlicensed pistol was recovered from the possession of Phoola Devi and hence they brought her to the police station. She however managed to run away from there and they did not know how she met with her death later on. According to the appellants she used to manufacture illicit liquor with the connivance and assistance of Devi Dayal (P.W. 1), Dasharath Prasad (P.W. 2) and Babu (P.W. 3) and others and they were falsely implicated in the case at their instance.