Site icon Legal Vidhiya

POP SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Admin
Spread the love
Appeal Criminal appeal no. 1846 of 2010
date of judgment 29th November, 2023
Court The supreme court of India 
Appellant Pop Singh & ors.
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh 
Bench J. B.R. Gavai and J. Pamidighantan sri Narasimha 

INTRODUCTION 

The pop singh v. state of Madhya Pradesh is a criminal appeal which challenges the sentenced/order passed by the Madhya Pradesh high court on 20th November 2023. 

Firstly, the learned additional session judge, Indore had convicted the appellants under section 148, 149 and section 304 (part-I) of Indian penal code and sentenced them of rigorous imprisonment of 02 years for the offence under section 148 IPC and 10 years for the offence under section 304 (part-I). Also, the fine of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the appellants. On the appeal in high court against the sentenced of additional session judge, the high court confirm the conviction of appellants under section 148 and 304(part-I), but reduced the sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

  1. There was a dispute between accused persons and father of deceased (Jeevan singh) i.e. Mr. Guman singh, on matter of that accused, purchases the land by one Gulab singh.
  2. This is a case which happened on 23rd April 1997, when the deceased was going to sell out the vegetables in the vegetable market by his Scooty. 
  3. All the appellants armed with axe, farsa and dharia reached in front of the deceased, when he was in front of the house of one Ramlal in village alwasa, and started assaulting the deceased. Then, Jeevan singh fell down on the ground. 
  4. The uncle of the deceased reached on the spot, on hearing the cry of Jeevan singh, and saw the whole incident assaulting the deceased with various sharp edge weapons by the appellants. 
  5. The appellants also try to assault the uncle of the deceased (who is Padam singh), but he ran away and hide inside the forest/jungle. 
  6. One Bhagwamtibai and peer Mohd. Had also witnessed to the incident. 
  7. After assaulting to the deceased, appellants threatened to the deceased father i.e. Guman singh. 
  8. After the incident, Jeevan singh was taken to the hospital by peers Mohd & Rajendra singh. 
  9. Because the deceased was hospitalized, initially the FIR was lodged by Padam Singh, for the offence punishable under section 147, 148, 149 & 307 of IPC. 
  10.  The police recorded the statement of the deceased person on the same day. 
  11. All accused were arrested by police and the weapons were seized, on their disclosure statements.
  12. The deceased died on 27th April 1997. 
  13. The charge sheet was filed by police, after the investigation, for the offence under section 147, 148 & 302 of IPC, in the court of judicial magistrate and case was given to session court. 
  14. The session court passed the above mentioned conviction of all accused and the high court, also, confirm the same by reducing the rigorous imprisonment to 7 years. 

ISSUE OF THE CASE 

Whether the conviction under section 304 (part-I) is sustainable or requires alteration to section 304 (part-II). 

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT 

The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellants is Shri Sushil Kumar Jain. He contended that on the vital parts of the body, there is no sustained injury to the deceased person. The injuries were only on the hands and legs. Further, he contended that it cannot be said that either the appellants had no intention or knowledge the injuries caused to the deceased would result in death. The prosecution case must fall under section 325 or 326 of IPC. He said that for the said offence the imprisonment of 3 years and five months would be undergone, for the end of justice. 

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT 

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (state) is Shri harmeet singh Ruprah. He contended that the high court had already taken a view in the matter and reduced the sentenced from rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. As a matter of fact, the case falls under section 302 of IPC, as the appellants are armed with deadly weapons. Further, he contended that there are 9 injuries which have been sustained by the deceased and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 

JUDGMENT 

On 29th November 2023, the Supreme Court observed that there was no intention to kill the deceased. However, the court said that the nature of 9 injuries sustained by the deceased show that the all accused had knowledge that their act/assaulting to the deceased was likely to result in the deceased’s death. Further, the Supreme Court alter the conviction from section 304(part-I) of the IPC to section 304(part-II) of IPC and reduced the sentence from 7 years rigorous imprisonment to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. 

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

There was a prosecution case of the punishable offence under section 148, 149 & 304 (part-I) of IPC and the appellants were convicted by the session court and high court for 10 years and 07 years, respectively, for the same offence. The supreme court modified the sentence, on appeal in the court, from 7 years rigorous imprisonment to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under section 148, 149 & 304(part-II) of IPC. The court modified the sentence by stating that in the prosecution case there was lacking of intention to kill, but, the knowledge was there.

This article has been written by Bhawna, student of Teerthanker Mahaveer university, Moradabad, intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version