This article has been written by Yash Mittal, pursuing LLB-2 year from Mewar Law institute. 

Petitioner

Ghapoo Yadav & Ors.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Date of Judgment

17/02/2003

Bench

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT

Facts of the Case

Gopal and Lekhram(the deceased) were the sons of Ramlal. The accused Ghapoo Yadav is the father of accused Mangal Singh, Janku, and Kewal. The witnesses, accused and deceased were from the same village and there was a dispute between them over the issue of land. 

After the request has been made by the Ramlal, the revenue authority does the measurement of the land. After the measurement it was found that the land belonging to accused Mangal Singh was in the possession of Ramlal and on that land there was a berry tree that exists. 

The tree initially comes under the possession of Ramlal but after the measurement, he parted with the possession thereof. Family members of Ramlal have cut the berry tree, the day before the incident for which the accused and deceased had arguments and disagreements. 

On June 9, 1986, the day of the incident the accused Janku asked the deceased why they were cutting the berry tree. Lekhram said that the tree was planted by their family members and belongs to them only. The deceased claimed that he had not cut the tree. 

And this led to disagreements between them and the result of this is that the accused persons brutally assaulted the deceased person which resulted in a fracture of his leg.

After the incident, the Lekhram and Ramlal ran away from the place of the incident and returned with other villagers. They saw that the deceased was dying out of breath and they took him to the Maharajpur Police Station. And he immediately sent for the treatment. Doctors found 7 injuries on the body of the deceased. His dying declaration was recorded and the deceased took his last breath on June 10, 1986, at 2:00 am. On the consideration of the evidence on record, the trial court found that the accused persons were guilty and convicted and sentenced them aforenoted. 

Issues Before the Court

1) Whether the offense committed by the accused comes under section 302 murder. 

2) Whether the act done by the accused is premeditated or not. 

Judgment

Appellants questions the judgment of Madhya Pradesh high court, as they were convicted for their offense under section 148, 302 read with 149 of Indian penal code. 

But the learned counsel for appellants held that section 302 was not applicable because the injuries on the deceased were in the course of a sudden quarrel, without any cruel and unusual intentions and any premeditation. So exception 4 to section 300 is applicable. 

Learned counsel of State of Madhya Pradesh high court held that the application of section 302 was rightly applied and the trial court had rightly applied it with section 148 and 149 of IPC. 

As learned counsel for appellants said that exception 4 to section 300 was applicable because culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted cruelly or unusually. 

The facts of the case had similarities to those in Sukhbir Singh v State of Haryana. 

But after the judgment, the appellants are convicted under section 304 part 1 of IPC that is punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. And the custodial sentence of 10 years and fine was imposed. 

Latest Posts


Archives

2 Comments

  1. Very simply explained. Thank you.

  2. I’m extremely impressed along with your writing talents as smartly
    as with the structure on your weblog. Is that this a paid subject matter or did you modify it your self?
    Anyway stay up the excellent quality writing, it is uncommon to peer a great weblog like this
    one nowadays..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *