State of U.P. vs Jai Dutt

State of U.P. vs Jai Dutt - Supreme Court Case 2022

[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2022

State of U.P. …Appellant

                                                                                       

Versus

Jai Dutt and Anr.            …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.870

of 1987, by which the High Court has allowed the said

appeal   in   part   and   has   converted   the   conviction   of   the

accused from that of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC

1

to Section 326 IPC, the State of Uttar Pradesh had preferred

the present appeal.

2. As per the case of the prosecution when the deceased

was working in his agricultural field all the accused persons

reached there and started abusing him.  That the deceased

was   beaten   by   the   accused   persons.     All   the   accused

persons were having different weapons with them.   All of

them started beating the deceased resulting in a number of

injuries and later considering his serious condition, he was

taken to hospital at Lucknow where after about six days, he

succumbed to the injuries.   All the accused persons were

charged and tried for the offences under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of the IPC except accused no.1 Jai Dutt who

was  charged and  tried for the  offence punishable  under

Section 302 IPC.  To prove the charge against the accused,

the prosecution examined a number of witnesses of which,

PW1 and PW2 were the eye­witnesses to the incident.  By

examining PW8 ­ Dr. P.R. Mishra who conducted the postmortem   on   the   body   of   the   deceased,   the   prosecution

brought on record the post­mortem report.  The trial Court

convicted Jai Dutt for the offence under Section 302 IPC

2

and   sentenced   him   to   undergo   life   imprisonment.     The

learned   trial   Court   also   convicted   other   accused   Lal

Bahadur, Sher Singh and Shastri for the offences under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced

them to undergo life imprisonment.  

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment

and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, all

the accused preferred the criminal appeal before the High

Court.   During the pendency of the appeal, accused Lal

Bahadur and Sher Singh expired.   Therefore, appeal qua

those persons abated.   That by impugned judgment and

order the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal qua

rest of the accused Jai Dutt and Shastri and has converted

the conviction from that of Section 302 read with Section 34

IPC  to  Section  326  IPC, mainly on  the  ground that  the

deceased   died   after   six   days   from   the   incident   and   no

fracture of head was found.  The High Court has imposed

the sentence of two years only for the offence under Section

326 IPC solely on the ground that incident occurred about

36 years back and therefore imposing two years sentence

would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

3

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court converting

the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC, the

State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri   Rana   Mukherjee,   learned   Senior   Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant – State has vehemently

submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case

the   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   converting   the

conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC. 

3.1 It   is   submitted   by   Shri   Mukherjee,   learned   Senior

Advocate that as such the High Court has specifically held

against the accused as they went to the field of the deceased

and started the quarrel and used weapons and caused the

injuries.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   also

observed and held that PW1 and PW2 – eye witnesses are

wholly trustworthy but there is no reason to disbelieve their

statements.  It is submitted that despite the above when the

deceased succumbed to the injuries and died because of the

head  injury,  a  clear  case  of  murder  was  made  out  and

therefore, the High Court ought not to have converted the

conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC.

4

3.2 It is submitted that merely because the deceased died

after six days could not have been the ground to convert the

conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC.   It is

submitted that the High Court has not at all appreciated

and/or   considered   the   injuries   mentioned   in   the   postmortem report and the cause of death.  It is submitted that

merely because no fracture on the head was found cannot

be a ground, not to convict the accused for the offence

under Section 302 IPC.  It is submitted that in a given case

a person might have died because of the internal injuries

like in the present case.  It is submitted that therefore, the

reasoning   given   by   the   High   Court   while   converting   the

conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC can be

said to be perverse.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Salman

Khurshid,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   for   the

respondents – accused.  

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Khurshid, learned

Senior Advocate appearing for the accused that in the facts

and circumstances of the case and having found no fracture

on the head of the deceased and he died after six days of the

5

incident and also, considering the fact that the injuries were

not so serious and/or grave, the High Court has rightly

acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC

and has rightly converted the same to Section 326 IPC.  It is

submitted by Shri Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate that

when the deceased was first taken to the PHC, PW6 Dr. B.L.

Katiyar   who   did   MLC   of   injured   Ram   Autar   (who

subsequently died) noticed nine injuries which were simple

in nature.  It is submitted therefore that the case would not

fall under Section 302 IPC as observed and held by the High

Court.

4.2 It   is   submitted   by   Shri   Khurshid   learned   Counsel

appearing on behalf of the accused that in fact the incident

occurred on the spur of the moment and the quarrel took

place   because   of   the   minor   dispute   and   there   was   no

intention to kill the deceased, therefore, the case would not

fall under Section 302 IPC.

5. Making the above submissions it is prayed to dismiss 

the present appeal more particularly when the High Court 

has already passed an order to pay compensation of Rs.2 

lakhs to the objector Raman Babu.

6

6. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the

respective parties at length.

7. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   on

appreciation   of   evidence   the   trial   Court   convicted   the

accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Section

302 read with Section 34 of the IPC respectively, having

killed/committed   the   murder   of   deceased   Ram   Autar,

relying upon the medical evidence on record as well as the

evidence of eye­witnesses of PW1 and PW2.  However, in an

appeal   preferred   by   the   accused,   the   High   Court   has

observed that PW1 and PW2 – eye witnesses are wholly

trustworthy   and   there   is   no   reason   to   disbelieve   their

statements.  Though the High Court has accepted the case

on   behalf   of   the   prosecution   that   on   20.12.1983   in   the

evening all the four accused persons entered the field of the

complainant and started abusing deceased Ram Autar and

all the accused persons were having different weapons with

them and all of them started beating the deceased resulting

in a number of injuries on his body and thereafter when the

Ram Autar was taken to the hospital and later succumbed

to injuries and died, the High Court has converted Section

7

302 IPC to Section 326 IPC on the ground that the deceased

died after six days of the incident and no facture on his

head was found.   However, the High Court has not at all

considered   the   injuries   mentioned   in   the   post   mortem

report.  As per the post mortem report following antemortem

injuries on the dead body of the Ram Autar were found:

“1. Scabbed abraded contusion 8 cm x 6 cm on

the left side of head above the left eye brow.

2. Scabbed abraded contusion 9 cm x 5 on the left

scapular region.

3. Scabbed abraded contusion 6 cm x 5 cm on the

left side of buttock.

4. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on the 5th

lumber spine.

5. Infected wound 1.5 cm x 0.5c, x muscle deep on

the front of mid of left leg.

6. Multiple scabbed abraded contusion in an area

of 18 cm x 2 cm on the upper half of left leg.

7. Scabbed abrasion on an area of 22 cm 2 cm on

the front of right leg.”

  

7.1 As per the deposition of Dr. P.R. Mishra – PW8 who

conducted   the   post   mortem,   on   opening   of   the   brain

menages, found brain congested, subdural hematoma over

both temporal lobes.  As per the doctor the deceased died

due   to   head   injury   no.1.     The   aforesaid   injuries   more

particularly head injury no.1 was fatal and because of said

injuries the deceased died.   Merely because the deceased

8

died after six days could not have been the ground to set

aside the conviction for the offence under Section 302 IPC

and to convert it to Section 326 IPC.  The deceased was first

taken to the PHC, however his condition was found to be

serious   and   therefore,   he   was   taken   to   the   Lucknow

Hospital   on   20.12.1983   and   thereafter   while   under

treatment he died on 26.12.1983 and the main cause of

death is found to be the head injury no.1.  At this stage, it is

required to be noted that though the High Court has noticed

the nine injuries as noticed by Dr. B.L. Katiyar of Medical

Officer at PHC, the High Court has not at all noticed and/or

considered at all the antemortem injuries on the dead body

of Ram Autar mentioned in the post­mortem report.   As

observed hereinabove and as per the medical evidence the

cause of death was due to head injury no.1.  The weapon

was used on the head ­ vital part of the body and ultimately

the same proved to be fatal and the deceased died due to

head injury no.1.   Therefore, by no stretch of imagination

the case would fall under Section 326 IPC.

7.2. One another reason given by the High Court to convert

the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 326 IPC is

9

that no fracture on the head was found.   However, it is

required to be noted that the deceased died because of the

internal injuries.   As per the post­mortem report and the

medical evidence head injury is found.  Head injury no.1 is

reproduced hereinabove.  As per the deposition of Dr. P.R.

Mishra – PW8, who conducted the post­mortem, on opening

of the brain menages, he found brain congested, subdural

hematoma   over   both   temporal   lobes.  Therefore,   merely

because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take

the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due

to   head   injury   no.1.     As   observed   hereinabove   causing

injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the

vital part of the body and therefore a clear case of Section

302 IPC has been established and proved.   Therefore, the

learned trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the

offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC

respectively.

7.3 Even otherwise considering Section 326 IPC, we fail to

appreciate how the case would fall under Section 326 IPC

when the deceased actually died due to grievous hurt and

the injuries were on the vital part of the body – head.  At

10

this stage, it is required to be noted that in fact the accused

went   to   the   field   of   the   complainant   where   his   father

deceased Ram Autar was also working.   All of them went

with the deadly weapons and had beaten the deceased Ram

Autar   and   caused   serious   injuries   and   immediately   the

deceased   Ram   Autar   was   required   to   be   taken   to   the

hospital and he was first taken to PHC and thereafter to

Lucknow, Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.  For

the reasons stated above also the High Court has committed

grave error in convicting the accused for the offence under

Section 326 IPC by acquitting the accused for the offence

under Section 302 IPC.  The impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court acquitting the accused for the

offence Section 302 IPC and to convict the accused for the

offence   under   Section   326   IPC   is   unsustainable   and

deserves to be quashed and set aside and the judgment and

order passed by the trial Court is required to be restored.

8. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated

hereinabove the present appeal succeeds.   The impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court acquitting the

11

accused – respondents Jai Dutt and Shastri for the offence

under Section 302 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC respectively

and convicting them for the offence under Section 326 IPC

is hereby quashed and set aside.  The judgment and order

of the learned trial Court convicting the accused Jai Dutt for

the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   IPC   and

convicting the accused ­ Shastri for the offence punishable

under   Section   302/34   IPC   is   hereby   restored.   The

respondents   –   accused   are   sentenced   to   undergo   life

imprisonment with the fine as imposed by the learned trial

Court.

Now both the accused be taken into custody forthwith

to undergo the life imprisonment. Present appeal is allowed

accordingly.

……………………………….J.

     [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI;            ……………………………….J.

JANUARY 19, 2022.     [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

12

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले