Gubra and others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sr. No.,Section,Imprisonment,Fine,Default of fine

1,302 and 302/34 of the IPC,R.I. for Life,"Rs.5,000/- each",R.I. for two years

2,307 and 307/34 of the IPC,R.I. for five years,"Rs.5,000/-",R.I. for two years

3,323 and 323/34 of the IPC,R.I. for six months,Rs.500/-,R.I. for three months

Dr. S.K. Babulkar (PW-18) has supported the prosecution story. He deposed that on 5.11.1999, Chandra Kumar was admitted in Medical",,,,

College Super Specialty wing. His relative informed that earlier Chandra Kumar was brought to the District Hospital, Seoni. Dr. S.K. Babulkar",,,,

has found following injuries:-,,,,

(i) Depressed fracture on right frontal area on head. Due to this injury, the brain over left ear was badly affected.",,,,

The patient was in serious condition therefore, he was operated on 8.11.1999. His condition was continuously going to deteriorate. He died on",,,,

13.11.1999 at about 3:10 p.m. As per opinion of Dr. S.K. Babulkar, Chandra Kumar died due to head injuries.",,,,

In our opinion, the injuries of Chandra Kumar is sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course because he timely obtained medical care,",,,,

therefore, he was survived for 8-9 days more.",,,,

Dr. V.N. Ambade (PW-12) conducted autopsy of the deceased Chandra Kumar. He also corroborated the testimony of S.K. Babulkar,,,,

(PW-18). Further, he found several abrasions on hand and leg of body of deceased. In internal examination, he found haematoma on head about",,,,

3"" x 2"". A hole on right side of forehead along with fracture in various small bones with contusion about 21/2"" x 2"". Another contusion about 2"" x",,,,

1/2"" on right side of forehead. Chandra Kumar died due to blood haemorrhage and broken bones. Thus, with regard to the deceased Chandra",,,,

Kumar, the ocular evidence is duly corroborated by medical evidence also.",,,,

The prosecution case is supported by injured eye-witness also. Dr. R.N. Ojha (PW-11) proves that he found that Lallo Bai, Sunna and",,,,

Chandra Kumar were in injured condition. Sunna has sustained the following injuries:-,,,,

Incised wound 11 cm x 5 cm x 4 cm obliquely over left lateral aspect of neck extending to nape. 21/2 below the left ear.,,,,

Lacerated wound 2"" x 1"" over right occipital region below right ear.",,,,

Contusion over back middle part of the head of size 4 cm x 1 cm.,,,,

As per opinion of Dr. Ojha, except the injuries over his neck, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within six hours from",,,,

examination. Neck injury was caused by hard and sharp object. Similarly, he stated that the injuries of Lallo Bai (PW-5) were caused by hard and",,,,

blunt object and injuries of Chandra Kumar (deceased) were caused by hard and sharp object.,,,,

As per prosecution case, at the scene of occurrence, every accused persons had actively participated with axes and there were four injured",,,,

persons. In such condition, there is a possibility that accused persons used hard and sharp object but due to some reasons or pressure, some",,,,

injuries were caused by sharp edged of axe or some injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. It was naturally happened and it creates no,,,,

doubt against the prosecution story.,,,,

Inspector S.M. Awasthy (PW-14) deposed that he recorded memorandum of appellants Gubra and Antu. Both the appellants stated that their,,,,

axes were hidden by them in their home. As per their memorandum Exs.P/8 & P/9, he recovered two axes from their possession vide seizure",,,,

memo Exs.P/10 & P/11. After sometime, he also recovered two axes as per memorandum Exs.P/5 & P/6 of appellants from their house. All the",,,,

seized articles were sent to Dr. R.N. Ojha (PW-11). Dr. Ojha clearly deposed that he found some blood stains on two axes and two other axes,,,,

were examined by him. The injuries of deceased Chandra Kumar may be caused by aforesaid axes. He further deposed that if proper treatment,,,,

was not provided to victim Sunna, he could have died due to his injuries, which were dangerous to his life in ordinary course.",,,,

We find that all the accused persons were jointly assaulted the deceased and injured persons by axes. They jointly went to the field of the,,,,

deceased. In view of the evidence on record, the prosecution would not be required to establish that it is any one particular accused, who is",,,,

responsible for causing the fatal injuries in as much as the ingredients of Section 34 of the IPC would be squarely attracted in the present case as,,,,

the principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of Kara Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2017 SC 5413.",,,,

In case of Sudip Kumar Sen @ Biltu Vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2016) 3 SCC 26, it has been held as under:-",,,,

Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act and essence of that liability is the existence of common",,,,

intention. Common intention implies acting in concert and existence of a pre-arranged plan which is to be proved/inferred either from the conduct,,,,

of the accused persons or from attendant circumstances. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more",,,,

than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. It must, therefore, be proved that:- (i) there was common intention on the part of several",,,,

persons to commit a particular crime and (ii) the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. Common intention,,,,

implies prearranged plan. Under Section 34 IPC, a pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary to be proved. The essence",,,,

of liability under Section 34 IPC is conscious mind of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. The question,,,,

whether there was any common intention or not depends upon inference to be drawn from the proved facts and circumstances of each case. The,,,,

totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit,,,,

an offence with which they could be convicted. See also. Ranbeer Singh (dead) by Legal Representative Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,",,,,

(2015) 12 SCC 221 and Rajkishore Purohit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2017) 9 SCC 483.",,,,

It is not possible to read a person''s mind. There can hardly be direct evidence of common intention. Existence or non-existence of common",,,,

intention amongst accused has to be deciphered cumulatively from their conduct and behavior in facts and circumstances of each case. Events prior,,,,

to occurrence as also after and during occurrence, are all relevant to deduce if there existed any common intention. There can be no straitjacket",,,,

formula. Absence of any overt act of assault, exhortation or possession of weapon, cannot be singularly determinative of absence of common",,,,

intention""",,,,

The appellants have submitted that learned trial Court has committed a grave error to not consider the version of defence witnesses. In this,,,,

regard, the defence witness Gubra (DW-4) and his witness Jeevan Lal (DW-1) deposed that the appellants had rivalry with the complainant party",,,,

for land dispute. The appellant Gubra explained that his lands were situated adjacent to the complainant lands. He deposed that the deceased,,,,

Chandra Kumar and injured Sunna were quarreled with each other in which Chandra Kumar died. We are not inclined to accept this defence,,,,

because we do not find any possibility as stated by the appellant Gubra. Further all the eyewitnesses clearly stated about the involvement of the,,,,

appellants. No suggestion has been accepted by them that incident occurred due to quarrel between the deceased Chandra Kumar and Sunna. In,,,,

our considered opinion, the defence story is falsely, concocted and afterthought made by the appellants, hence it cannot be relied on.",,,,

In cross-examination of Maniram (PW-1) and other witnesses, it is established that before this incident, on the report of Maniram, the",,,,

appellants Antu and Gubra were in jail and they were released before 2-3 days of the incident. Thereafter, they caused death of Chandra Kumar",,,,

and injuries to Sunna and Lallo Bai. Therefore, it is apparent from the record that the appellants caused death of Chandra Kumar with intention to",,,,

kill him and they attempted to cause death of Sunna also but fortunately, he saved. The act of appellants for causing death of Chandra Kumar",,,,

clearly comes for offence punishable under Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34, 323 and 323/34 of the IPC. The trial Court has rightly convicted",,,,

and sentenced the appellants for the aforesaid offences.,,,,

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The appellants who are in bail are hereby",,,,

directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court immediately to undergo the remaining jail sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take",,,,

appropriate action.,,,,

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance along with its record.,,,,