Devilal v State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 5 SCC 292

Introduction

The present case is based on an incident of Untouchability, it is one of evil practice which is being followed from ancient period and even now in various rural and some urban areas. The constituent framers are against these practices and even make many laws regarding the protection of the people then also in India phenomenon of caste system is deep rooted and even after more than 70 years of being constituted the problem of caste system is not completely eradicated. And many citizens become victim of such practices and similarly happened with Ganeshram in this case and resulted in offence of murder. According to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) ‘Harming someone with the malafide intention and causing death then it will be considered as murder and not capable homicide’, and in Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishment for murder is prescribed i.e., death or lifetime imprisonment and shall be liable to fine.

In the present case victim Ganeshram was been murdered by Devilal in company with his two sons Gokul and Amrat Ram. Even after taking him to the hospital by his family, they are not able to save him. Before going to hospital, Ganeshram registered an FIR on 19^th July 1988 stating that’ when he was returning to home Devilal with his two sons equipped with kulhari, Gokul holds with Talwar and Amrat Ram with lathi attacked him and Devilal also abused him calling ‘chamar’. They hit him that lead to a fracture in his right hand, swelling below eye and cut his right calve, when he cries loudly for help his wife Sajan bai, sister-in- law Saman bai and mother Gattubai ran to protect him, in due process of protecting him Saman bai got hurt on her elbow. Then the family put him in a tractor and reached the police station where he filed the FIR and was later taken to the district hospital.

Then Ganeshram died later on after midnight. The trial court after checking all the evidence, involving in the FIR taking it as dying declaration, statement of eyewitnesses convicted the accused with life imprisonment and fine of Rs 5000 on 1 May 1999, however the case was proved against Gattubai, and accused was not found punishable under SC\ST Act. 

Facts of the case

• In this case, the appellants Devilal and his sons Gokul and Amrat Ram filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Supreme Court in which the former convicted the appellant and his sons under special offence of caste- based disputation. In this case an FIR was made by Ganeshram victim who is died.
• Ganeshram was badly beaten by Devilal and his sons, by kulhari, Talwar and lathi and even got abused by the words like” DHED Caste CHAMARS have become arrogant (DHED JAT CHAMARON KE BHAV BADH GAYE HAIN” he was taken to police station where he registered the FIR and then was taken to district hospital by his family. And the doctor stated that “The victim’s condition was not good, he was unable to speak and his blood pressure could not be recorded”. The victim Ganeshram died later on, at midnight and then his post-mortem was conducted and the observation of his internal and external injuries was made. Cause of death was stated to be excessive bleeding by the doctor.

•  After investigation and considering the FIR as dying declaration a trial court convicted the accused, Devilal and his sons Gokul and Amrat Ram, under the Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, read with section 34 of IPC with punishment of imprisonment and Rs 5000 fine Although, the Court did not hold them guilty under the SC/ST Act. 

• Then an appeal was filed in High Court, and it was submitted before the high court that by observing the medical evidence on record that the deceased Ganeshram couldn’t have made any statement before the police, as he was not in condition to speak on the basis of which FIR was recorded. However, the submissions weren’t accepted by court and confirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against accused Devilal and his sons by its judgment dated 14 September, 2006 which decision was challenged in Supreme Court.

• It was noted in an application in 2017 that Amrat Ram, the second son of Devilal, was a juvenile at the time of commitment of the crime back in 1998. Therefore, the Supreme Court order the sessions court to conduct an enquiry into the matter of juvenility in 2018 in tendering with the act in force and submit the report of the same. The question of juvenility of Amrat Ram was raised as the age for a person to be juvenile according to Juvenile Justice Act 1986 used to be 16 years in 1998, when the crime was committed. Although, it was raised to 18 by the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.

• The Supreme Court said that this matter is supposed to be within the scope of jurisdictional power of Juvenile Justice Board for determining appropriate amount of fine that should be forced irrespective of the fact that the accused Amrat Ram was a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.

Issue raised

1. Whether the judgment passed by the High court of Madhya Pradesh by which appellants were held guilty was fair or not?
2. The appellant Amrat ram was major (16 years 11months 24 days) at the time of incident according to Juvenile justice Act, 1986 but was minor according to Juvenile justice Act, 2000 so, whether he was treated as a major or minor under jurisdiction?

Contentions of the petitioner 

• The appellant Devilal and his sons first time challenged the judgement of High court of Madhya Pradesh.
• The proficient Senior Advocate for the appellants Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain had argued that it would be impossible to believe that Ganeshram the victim who was badly injured and unable to utter a word in place where incident occur could have made any reporting to the police and even FIR was recorded after more than three hours since the offence was committed.
• He further argued that the witnesses were instructed by the deceased lawyer.
• The proficient Senior Advocate for the appellants has argued that the prosecution witness no.  7 Laxminarayan has accepted during cross examined that the front of Devilal’s house where offense was committed wasn’t visible from the house of the witnesses.
• At the time of crime in 1998, the Juvenile Justice Act 1986 was in force, which stated that any person who is below or at the age of 16 was considered as a juvenile. The age of Amrat Ram, the second son of Devilal, was 16 years, 11 months and 26 days at the time of   the offence. Therefore, he wasn’t a perfect juvenile within the definition of Juvenile Justice Act 1986. But this age was raised to 18 in new terms of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and hence the 2^nd  son of Devilal should be trial under the juvenile justice act 2000.[i]

Contentions of the respondent

• Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, proficient Advocate for the State said that the affirmation
   of Prosecution Witness no. 9, Dr. Kothari, proves that Ganeshram was alive when he was undertaking the initial examination. According to the witness, when he examined the deceased, he was unable to detect his blood pressure but, that is not necessary that he was not in condition to make a statement two hours earlier to police. It is clearly mentioned in the report that the person can’t utter is just an opinion of an expert and there is no report on the symptoms that he wasn’t able to utter just after the incident or after the FIR was recorded.
• Advocate for the State said that affirmation of Prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 that are Sajan Bai and Saman bai are quite reasonable, and their presence was taken right from the starting stage of reporting of the crime that difference was just 100 feet from their house to Devilal’s and no cross-examination was done on this.
• Advocate for the State also stated that the weapons are recovered as well from Devilal’s house.
• Advocate for the State stated that The FIR itself referred to the presence of Prosecution witnesses 1 -Sajan Bai and 2-Saman Bai. The statement of both these witnesses clearly proves that the appellants had started an assault on deceased which led to his death. The claim on part of Sajan Bai that her earlier statement recorded during investigation was read over to her does not mean that she was been said to follow the line of prosecution. Thus, even if the affirmation of Sajan Bai is removed from consideration, the affirmation of Saman Bai, along with the dying declaration of Ganeshram, completely pull off the matter against the appellants. [ii]

Judgement

In this case the court held the affirmation of lower court only and found the appellant guilty for the offence. the court charged Devilal and his sons for murder under section 300. The court also held that if the court ignores the affirmation of sajan bai then also affirmation of saman bai and dying declaration of Ganeshram is enough proof against the appellant. Even the tools used during the commitment of crime is being ceased from them. The sentence of two accused Devilal and Gokul remained same as given by lower court, according to section 302 and 342 with 34 of Indian penal code and were given lifetime imprisonment along with fine However in the case of Amrat Ram, the second son of Devilal his lifetime imprisonment was kept aside for time being and the matter was given to Jurisdiction of Juvenile Justice Board as mentioned in section 20 for determining appropriate amount of fine that should be put upon him as the age of juvenile was raised from 16 to 18 in Juvenile Justice Act of 2000.[iii]

Conclusion  

In this case of Devilal vs. state of Madhya Pradesh, the offense was resulted out of the one of the evil practice of the society i.e. caste discrimination. The accused Devilal along with his two sons beat Ganeshram badly who later on died. The case first went in trial court and then in the High court who gave the judgment of lifetime imprisonment, this order was challenged in the Supreme Court who kept the judgment same for Devilal and elder son Gokul and in the matter of Amrat Ram was given to Juvenile board. I fully satisfy with the judgment. The third accused was transferred to the juvenile jurisdiction board as mentioned in section 20, he was a juvenile at the time of offense according to the JJ Act, 2000 in which age of juvenile was changed from 16 to 18.

---

[i] Indian kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37788/

[ii]Main.sci.gov.in, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2006/32731/32731_2006_34_1501_26599_Judgement_25-Feb-2021.pdf, 

[iii] Indian kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/497797/

This is written by Y Sakshi Choudhary, Guru Ghasidas Central University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya