http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SUKHPALLALAL RAIRAMRUP SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/01/1997

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 286 OF 1989                             WITH               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 287 OF 1989                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.      The five  appellants in  these three appeals were tried for offences  punishable under  Sections 147,  304 (Part II) read with  Section 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  (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.      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 camping at Chhatarpur to look after the  law and order situation there. At the time of her health 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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.      The further  prosecution case  is that on September 17, 1982 at  or about  8 A.M.  the appellants  entered into  the house  of   Phoola  Devi   on  the  pretext  that  they  had information that she was having in her possession contraband qanja and  unlicensed pistol.  Phoola Devi was, however, not in the  house at  that time  and her  nephew told  them that there was no such material. In the meantime Phoola Devi came back home  and denied  the accusation  levelled against her. Appellant Sukhpal then abused her and appellant Ramrup Singh caught hold  of her  hair and  started beating  her. She was dragged outside  the house and then taken towards the police station. While  being  taken  to  the  police  station,  the appellants continued  to beat  her with lathis and a Beshram stick. At the police station they let her go on an assurance that she  would pay  Rs.  150/-  and  would  not  lodge  any complaint. Phoola  Devi, however,  went  to  Chhatarpur  and lodged a  complaint on September 18, 1982. She was then sent for medical  examination by  Dr.  S.K.  Dixit  (P.W.4),  who examined her and gave his report (Ex.P-2). Thereafter Phoola Devi left  the village  out of  fear and  went to the nearby town of  Banda (Uttar  Pradesh) where  she died on September 23, 1982.  Her death was reported at Kotwali, Bandavide. Dr. Vishal Chand  (P.W.5) performed  the autopsy  and  gave  his report with  his opinion that Phoola Devi died of rupture of liver and  excessive bleeding.  On receipt  of the report of the  post-mortem   examination  and   after  completion   of investigation  police   submitted  chargesheet  against  the appellants.      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  Baby (P.W.3)  and others  and they were falsely implicated in the case at their instance.      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 her 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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.      We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and  considered the  entire evidence  on record.  Our such exercise  persuades us  to hold  that the findings that have been  recorded by  the  High  Court  against  the  five appellants are  proper and  justified and no interference in respect thereof is called for.      When the evidence of the eye witnesses is considered in the light  of the  respective cases of the parties it stands fully established  that the  appellants came together to the premises of  Phoola Devi  on the  plea that  they wanted  to search it.  If the defence contention that on such search an unlicensed pistol  was recovered was true, it was obligatory on their  part to  prepare a  seizure memo in respect of the same  and   then  register   a  case  against  Phoola  Devi. Similarly, it  must also  be said, if really she had managed to run  away from  the police  station after she was brought there under  arrest, it  was expected  that not  only  there would be  some daily  diary entry  in the  police station in support thereof  but also a prosecution launched against her for escaping from lawful custody. In absence of any evidence either oral  or documentary  to support the defence story we are unable  to accept the same. We hasten to add that we are not unmindful  of the  settled principle  of  law  that  the prosecution must  stand on  its own  feet  and  not  on  the weakness  of   the  defence   but,   then   these   telltale circumstances not  only falsify  the defence  story but also land credence  to the  prosecution case  that to wreak their vengeance on  Phoola Devi  for her  having lodged  complaint against them  to their superiors that the appellants came to her house on the false pretext of searching for unauthorised firearms and  forcibly took  her to  the  police  station  - beating her  all the  way -  as testified  by the three eye- witnesses.      It was  however contended  on behalf  of the appellants that even  if it  was assumed that the story as given out by the eye-witnesses  was true  the appellants  could  be  held guilty only  for an  offence under  Section 323 IPC, and not 304 (Part  II) IPC,  in view of the nature of injuries found by Dr.  S.K. Dikshit (P.W.4) who first examined Phoola Devi. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the facts that she died six days after the alleged assault at  a different  place and  that Dr.  Vishal Chander (P.W.5), who  held autopsy,  found some more injuries on her person it  was evident  that she met with her death owing to injuries she sustained later.      Having carefully  gone through  the evidence of the two doctors we  do not find any substance in this contention. It is of course true that while Dr. Dikshit found four injuries on the  person of  Phoola Devi  Dr. Chander  found six.  The reason for  such discrepancy as to the number of injuries is not far  to seek.  The two  injuries which were found by Dr. Chander -  and not  by Dr.  Dikshit -  were on  the  gluteal region (the  buttocks) and  needless to  say those could not have been  noticed without  disrobing the  victim. It is not unlikely therefore that Dr. Dikshit did not, keeping in view

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

her modesty, examined her thoroughly but consequent upon her death Dr. Chander was free from such inhibition.      We next  get from  the evidence of the two doctors that both of  them found contusion on the right side of the chest (breast) of  Phoola Devi besides other injuries. Dr. Chander testified that  on internal  examination he  found that  the liver was  ruptured and  opined  that  shock  and  excessive bleeding owing  to such  rupture was the cause of her death. The cause  of such rupture according to Dr. Chander, was the above contusion  (which was described by both the doctors as injury No.  3). Since  the above  injury was earlier seen by Dr. Dikshit,  it is  obvious that  the victim  sustained the same in  the incident  in question  and  not  later  on,  as contended by  the defence.  As according  to Dr. Chander the above contusion  was sufficient  in the  ordinary course  of nature to  cause death  the offence  that was  committed  by causing the above injury cannot but be one under Section 304 (Part II)  IPC. We, therefore, find no reason to disturb the concurrent findings  of the  learned Courts  below that  the four appellants  (whose conviction  was upheld  by the  High Court) were  responsible for  the death  of Phoola  Devi. As regards the  appellant Sukhpal,  we are of the view that the High  Court   was  fully  justified  in  setting  aside  his acquittal. The  evidence on record clearly demonstrated that out of  spite, he along with his men went to the premises of Phoola Devi  on the  false pretext  of searching  the  same, brought her  out and dragged her to the police station while assaulting her  on the  way which ultimately resulted in her death. All  the appellants  including Sukhpal  are therefore guilty of  the offence  of committing  culpable homicide not amounting to  murder in  prosecution of their common object. We, therefore,  uphold the  conviction of  appellant Sukhpal under Section 304 (Part II)/149 IPC and alter the conviction of the  other four  appellants from Section 304 (Part II)/34 IPC to 304 (Part II)/149 IPC.      Coming now to the question of sentence we feel that the appellants should  adequately compensate  the members of the deceased’s family  for the  atrocities they committed taking advantage of  the haplessness of Phoola Devi. We, therefore, while  reducing   their  substantive  sentence  of  rigorous imprisonment from  five years  to  three  years  direct  the appellant Sukhpal  to pay  a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and each of the other  four appellants a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine. In default of  payment of  fine, Sukhpal  will suffer  rigorous imprisonment for two years more and the four others one year more. The  entire fine,  if realised,  shall be  paid to the heirs  of   deceased  Phoola   Devi  as   compensation.  The appellants, who  are on  bail, shall  now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence.      The appeals are thus disposed of.