Devi Lal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, K.M. Joseph
FACTS:
On July 19, 1998, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed against Devilal and his two sons, Gokul and Amritram. As per Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1) (10) and 3(2) (5).
While Ganesh Ram was returning home. Devilal had attacked him from the sharp side of Kulhari, intending to kill him. The first strike struck in the calf of Ganeshram’s right leg. Gokul cut the calf of his left leg. Ganeshram’s legs were severed there, and he fell. Amritram hit Lathi, which resulted fracture in his right fist. And they called him Chamar. They kicked him near eyes, causing swelling. He was rescued by His mother, Gattu Bai, wife, Sajan Bai, and sister-in-law, Saman Bai, when they reached there from their home; and brought him to the police station. Ganeshram was then admitted to the Community Health Centre. Ganeshram was then examined by PW9-Dr. Kailash Chandra Kothari examined. After examination it was found that the ganeshram was not in good general health, he could not speak, and that his blood pressure could not be recorded. At about 9.45 a.m. on July 20, 1998, a post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of Ganeshram. During the investigation accused Devilal, Gokul and Amritram were arrested. A sword, a lathi and an axe were recovered. Gattubai wife of accused Devilal was tried in special offence case.
TRIAL COURT:
Trial Court held FIR could be used as a dying declaration and that the prosecution’s case was supported by the statements made by Sajan Bai, Saman Bai, and Laxminarayan as well as by the recoveries made at the instance of the accused Devilal, Gokul, and Amritram. The trial Court found that the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was proved by the prosecution as against accused. However, case against Gattubai was not proved. Additionally, it was determined that none of the accused could be found guilty of any offenses covered by the SC/ST Act. And they were sentenced life imprisonment with fine of 5,000 each.
HIGH COURT:
A criminal appeal was filed at the High Court by accused Devilal, Gokul, and Amritram. It was argued that considering the medical evidence it was suspicious that the deceased could have given a statement to the police, which served as the foundation for the FIR filed in this particular case. The additional argument was that the witnesses were tutored, as Sajan Bai acknowledged during her cross-examination. The High Court did not accept these submissions. However, it acknowledged that Laxminarayan’s version could not be trusted because it did not align with Saman Bai’s statement.
As a result, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Devilal, Gokul, and Amritram. This decision is presently under challenge.
SUPREME COURT:
By order of this Court, accused Devilal and Gokul were freed on bail during the pendency of this appeal, after serving nine years and four months in jail.
Appellant counsel argued that on the day the offense was committed, accused Amritram was juvenile. The Sessions Judge Neemach was instructed by the Court to look into Amritram’s juvenility and report back to this court. After conducting the inquiry, it was discovered that accused Amritram was 16 years, 11 months, and 26 days old on the day of the offense. His birthdate was 23 March 1981.
ISSUE:
- Was the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling, which found the appellants guilty, correct or incorrect?
- The question is: Was the appellant Amrit ram a major as defined by the JJ Act of 1986 or a minor as defined by the JJ Act of 2000?
CONTENTIONS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE
- Learned senior advocate for the appellants, has argued that it is impossible that Ganeshram could have reported anything to the police given his struggling health and the fact that the FIR was filed more than three hours after the offense was committed.
- The appellants’ learned senior advocate, contended that during the prosecution’s cross-examination, witness 7 Laxminarayan acknowledged that the alleged eyewitnesses were unable to see the front of Devilal’s house, where the offense was committed.
- He added that, the witnesses had received tutoring.
CONTENTIONS FROM RESPONDENT SIDE
- The State’s learned advocate argued that Ganeshram was alive when he conducted the first examination, as demonstrated by the testimony of Prosecution Witness 9, Dr. Kothari. The witness claims that although Ganeshram’s blood pressure was not measured when the doctor examined him, this did not prevent him from speaking with the police two hours earlier. The report makes it very evident that the person’s inability to speak is only an expert’s opinion; no information regarding the symptoms leading up to the incident or the filing of the formal complaint is provided.
- testimonies of Prosecution witnesses Sajan Bai and Saman bai are coherent, and their presence was taken right from the initial 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. And the weapons are recovered as well.
- The testimony of these two witnesses unequivocally demonstrates that Ganeshram was assaulted by the appellants, resulting in his demise. PW1-Sajan Bai’s claim that she was given a copy of her earlier statement made during the investigation does not imply that she received guidance on how to proceed with the case. It is noteworthy to mention that PW2-Saman Bai was not asked any questions of this kind. Therefore, even if PW1-Sajan Bai’s testimony is disregarded, PW2-Saman Bai’s deposition and Ganeshram’s dying declaration altogether establish the case against the appellants.
- Appeallent Counsel contended accused Amrit Lal was a juvenile on the day the offence was committed.
RATIONAL:
The Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 was in effect when the incident in this case happened in July of 1998. Under the 1986 Act, a male juvenile’s age of juvenility was sixteen years old. Amrit Ram was undoubtedly not a juvenile under the 1986 Act, as he was 16 years and 11 months old on the date of the offense. However, in accordance with the rules of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the age of juvenility was raised to 18 years old. A juvenile’s pending legal proceedings as of the 2000 Act is covered by Section 20 of the Act.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
Offence against accused Devilal, Gokul and Amrit Ram was proved by the prosecution under Section 302 /34 IPC. It was determined, nevertheless, that none of the defendants could be found guilty of any offenses covered by the SC/ST Act.
INFERENCE:
In this instance, the court only upheld the lower court’s affirmation and declared the appellant guilty of the offense. The court brought murder charges against Devilal and his sons.The court also held that if the court ignores the affirmation of sajanbai 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 were being ceased from them. According to section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences of the two accused, Devilal and Gokul, remained the same as they were given by the lower court. They were given a lifetime prison sentence along with a fine. But in the case of Amrit Ram, Devilal’s second son, his life sentence was temporarily set aside, and the Juvenile Justice Board, as specified in section 20, was given jurisdiction to decide how much of a fine was appropriate to impose on him given that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 had raised the age of juveniles from 16 to 18.
SHIVALI NAGAR
LAW CENTRE 2, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI