{"id":119852,"date":"2011-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-04T13:59:04","modified_gmt":"2016-05-04T08:29:04","slug":"uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011<\/div>\n
                                              (1)                      Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03\n\n\n                 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR\n\n          DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA\n                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL\n\n                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 265\/2003\n\nAPPELLANTS:                      1.      Umadutt S\/o Bholeram, aged about 26\n                                         years,\n\n                                 2.      Bindu @ Arvind S\/o Bholeram, aged about\n                                         21 years,\n\n                                 3.      Amit S\/o Om Prakash Dubey, aged about\n                                         19 years,\n\n                                 4.      Smt. Vishakha Bai W\/o Om Prakash\n                                         Dubey, aged about 40 years\n\n                                         All R\/o Mali Mohalla, Shahgunj, District\n                                         Sehore (M.P.)\n\n\n                                   Versus\n\n\nRESPONDENT:                                State of Madhya Pradesh through Police\n                                           Station, Shahgunj, District Sehore (M.P.)\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
For the Appellants       :               Shri Amod Gupta, Advocate.
\nFor the respondent\/State :               Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.<\/p>\n
Date of hearing : 20\/01\/2011
\nDate of judgment: 27\/01\/2011<\/p>\n
                                        (J U D G M E N T )
\nPer: Rakesh Saksena; J,<\/p>\n
        Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated<\/p>\n
20.1.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nasrullanganj, District<\/p>\n
Sehore in Sessions Trial No. 191\/1999, convicting them under Sections<\/p>\n
302\/149, 147, 148, 324\/149 and 323\/149 of the Indian Penal Code and<\/p>\n
sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500\/-, rigorous
\n                                    (2)                Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for one year, rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for one year on<\/p>\n
each count respectively.\n<\/p>\n
2)    Briefly stated, facts of the prosecution case are that    there had<\/p>\n
occurred a dispute on 24.7.1999 between Kusum Dubey, the deceased<\/p>\n
with family members of her neighbour Om Prakash Dubey for her<\/p>\n
plucking `mehndi leaves’, which however, was pacified. On 27.7.1999,<\/p>\n
when Ram Kishore Dubey, husband of Smt. Kusum Dubey was going to<\/p>\n
market, as soon as he reached infront of the house of neighbour<\/p>\n
Bholaram, accused persons six in number confronted him. They were<\/p>\n
armed with Farsa, Luhangi, Iron Rod, Gidia and Lathis. They challenged<\/p>\n
him to settle the score and in a concert attacked him with their weapons.<\/p>\n
Hearing shrieks of Ramkishore Dubey, Kusum Dubey rushed to the spot<\/p>\n
and tried to rescue her husband, but they assaulted her also causing<\/p>\n
injuries to her all over the body. Thereafter, when Nirmal, Naveen and<\/p>\n
Jyoti, respectively sons and daughter of Ramkishore Dubey went to the<\/p>\n
spot and tried to save their parents, they were also assaulted by the<\/p>\n
accused persons.     Hearing uproar, Ram Bharose and Mahesh also<\/p>\n
reached at the spot. Ramkishore and Kusum succumbed to their injuries<\/p>\n
at the spot. Nirmal (PW3) along with his Uncle Ram Bharose and Jyoti<\/p>\n
went to police station Shahgunj and lodged the report of the incident.<\/p>\n
Vivek Asthana (PW9), Station Officer recorded the first information report<\/p>\n
Ex. P\/2. He went to the spot and recorded merg intimation Ex. P\/24 and<\/p>\n
prepared the spot map Ex. P\/3. After conducting inquest proceedings
\n                                      (3)              Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
and recording memorandums Ex. P\/4 and Ex. P\/5, dead bodies of Ram<\/p>\n
Kishore and Kusum Dubey were sent to Community Health Centre,<\/p>\n
Budhni.   Injured Nirmal, Naveen and Jyoti were also sent for medical<\/p>\n
examination and treatment.\n<\/p>\n
3)     On 27.7.1999, Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4) and Dr. Sandhya Rajgir<\/p>\n
(PW10) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead bodies and<\/p>\n
vide their postmortem reports Ex. P\/4 and Ex. P\/5 opined that the<\/p>\n
deceased persons had died due to homicidal injuries and the injuries<\/p>\n
found on their bodies were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to<\/p>\n
cause their death.\n<\/p>\n
4)     On 27.7.1999, Dr. V. Deshmukh (PW8) examined the injuries of<\/p>\n
Nirmal, Jyoti and Naveen. Their M.L.C. reports are Ex. P\/21, Ex. P\/22<\/p>\n
and Ex. P\/23 respectively.      In the X-ray report, humerus bone of the<\/p>\n
hand of Naveen was also found fractured.\n<\/p>\n
5)    On 28.7.1999, all the accused persons were arrested and on their<\/p>\n
information in the presence of Mansoor Ahmed (PW7), weapons used in<\/p>\n
the commission of the offence were recovered and seized by<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer Vivek Asthana (PW9). Clothes of accused persons<\/p>\n
were also seized. The seized articles were sent to F.S.L. for examination.<\/p>\n
After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case<\/p>\n
was then committed for trial.\n<\/p>\n
6)    During trial,    as appeared from the cross examination of<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses, defence of the appellants was that some unknown<\/p>\n
persons caused the death of deceased persons in the night.         All the
\n                                     (4)                 Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.<\/p>\n
Accused Sumit being juvenile, was sent for enquiry to Juvenile Court,<\/p>\n
Bhopal.\n<\/p>\n
7)     Prosecution examined 10 witnesses to substantiate its case.<\/p>\n
Mahesh (PW2), Nirmal (PW3), Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) were<\/p>\n
examined as eye witnesses of the case. Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4) and<\/p>\n
Dr. Sandhya Rajgir (PW10) were examined to prove the injuries found on<\/p>\n
the body of deceased persons and Dr. V.V. Deshmukh (PW8) was<\/p>\n
examined to prove the injuries of injured persons.<\/p>\n
8)     Learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial and upon appreciation<\/p>\n
of the evidence adduced in the case, convicted and sentenced the<\/p>\n
appellants as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been<\/p>\n
challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
9)     Appellants Om Prakash and Bholaram died during pendency of the<\/p>\n
present appeal, therefore, their appeal stood abated. Their names were<\/p>\n
deleted from the cause title.\n<\/p>\n
10)    It was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants that<\/p>\n
deceased Ram Kishore Dubey and Kusum Dubey died of homicidal<\/p>\n
injuries.   It is also reflected from the evidence of   Dr. R.K.Bhatnagar<\/p>\n
(PW4) and Dr. Sandhya Rajgir (PW10) that on 27.7.1999 they conducted<\/p>\n
the postmortem examination of dead bodies of Kusum Dubey and<\/p>\n
Ramkishore Dubey in Community Health Centre, Budhni. They found<\/p>\n
following injuries on the bodies of Smt. Kusum Dubey and Ram Kishore<\/p>\n
Dubey:\n<\/p>\n
                                 (5)               Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03\n\n\n\n\nInjuries of Smt. Kusum Dubey:-\n\n(i)     Perforated lacerated wound 2.7 cm x 0.5 cm over\n\nlower lip on left side,\n\n(ii)    lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.9 cm x bonedeep\n\nmandibular region on left side,\n\n<\/pre>\n
(iii)   fracture of shaft of mandible on left side. Broken<\/p>\n
ends are visible through injury no.2,<\/p>\n
(iv)    contusion 8 cm x 2.5 cm over left side of upper<\/p>\n
arm,<\/p>\n
(v)     lacerated wound 11 x1 x bone deep over occipital<\/p>\n
region,<\/p>\n
(vi)    lacerated wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep left<\/p>\n
side of skull in parietal region,<\/p>\n
(vii)   lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep on<\/p>\n
left occipital region,<\/p>\n
(viii) lacerated wound 5 cm x 1cm x bone deep over<\/p>\n
occipital region,<\/p>\n
(ix)    lacerated wound 2.9 cm x1 cm x bone deep over<\/p>\n
left side of skull in occipital region,<\/p>\n
(x)     contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm over back on left side<\/p>\n
below inferior angle to scapula,<\/p>\n
(xi)    contusion 7 cm x 1.5 cm over left side of back<\/p>\n
lumber region,
\n                                (6)                Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
(xii)    contusion 7 cm x 1.5 cm over left scapular<\/p>\n
region,<\/p>\n
(xiii) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on<\/p>\n
left forearm above wrist,<\/p>\n
(xiv) contusion 5 cm x 1.5 cm over sup. surface of left<\/p>\n
shoulder,<\/p>\n
(xv)     contusion 11 cm x 2cm over back on right side<\/p>\n
scapula,<\/p>\n
(xvi) contusion 14 cm x 2cm over back on right side<\/p>\n
just below inferior angle of scapula,<\/p>\n
(xvii) lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over<\/p>\n
right leg,<\/p>\n
(xviii) lacerated wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. over<\/p>\n
medial surface of right tibia and<\/p>\n
(xix) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over<\/p>\n
left leg.\n<\/p>\n
Injuries of Ramkishore Dubey:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)      Compound fracture of both bones of left leg (tibia<\/p>\n
and fibula), visible through lacerated wound which is 8<\/p>\n
cm x 8 cm x bone deep. Fracture of shaft of bones,<\/p>\n
(ii)     fracture of both bones of left forearm above<\/p>\n
wrist,<\/p>\n
(iii)    fracture of shafts of both bones of right forearm<\/p>\n
10 cm above wrist where there is contusion of 8 cm x 3
\n                             (7)                Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
cm present transversly,<\/p>\n
(iv)   contusion 12 cm x 2.5 cm over lateral surface of<\/p>\n
left upper arm,<\/p>\n
(v)    contusions 8 in number over back on right side<\/p>\n
of scapular region in different directions. Size varies<\/p>\n
from 10 cm x 3 cm to 7 cm x3 cm,<\/p>\n
(vi)   lacerated wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep over<\/p>\n
right frontal region,<\/p>\n
(vii) lacerated wound 9 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over<\/p>\n
right temporal region,<\/p>\n
(viii) lacerated wound 6 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over<\/p>\n
right parietal region,<\/p>\n
(ix)   lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over<\/p>\n
right zygomatic region extending towards right eye,<\/p>\n
(x)    contusion 1 cm x 3 cm over anterior surface of<\/p>\n
right thigh,<\/p>\n
(xi)   lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right<\/p>\n
upper arm dorsal surface,<\/p>\n
(xii) lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right<\/p>\n
upper arm 1 cm above injury no.11,<\/p>\n
(xiii) lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over right<\/p>\n
upper arm above injury no. 12,<\/p>\n
(xiv) lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.9 cm over<\/p>\n
bridge of nose transverse with fracture of nasal bones
\n                                    (8)               Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
      visible through wound,<\/p>\n
      (xv) contusions 13 in number present over left hip,<\/p>\n
      each measuring 10 cm x 3 cm parallel,<\/p>\n
      (xvi) lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right<\/p>\n
      tibia above ankle joint,<\/p>\n
      (xvii) lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep over<\/p>\n
      chin,<\/p>\n
      (xviii) contusion 8 cm x 8cm over chest on right side<\/p>\n
      and<\/p>\n
      (xix) fracture of shafts of ribs 3rd, 4th, 5th in mid<\/p>\n
      clavicular region.\n<\/p>\n
      In the opinion of doctors,   the cause of death of    Smt. Kusum<\/p>\n
Dubey and Ramkishore Dubey was cardio-respiratory failure due to<\/p>\n
severe hypovolumic shock, due to massive haemorhage from multiple<\/p>\n
lacerated wounds present on the persons of deceased followed by coma<\/p>\n
and death. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were caused<\/p>\n
due to forceful impacts with hard and blunt weapons.          They were<\/p>\n
homicidal in nature.\n<\/p>\n
11)   Apart from the above evidence,      from the evidence of Nirmal<\/p>\n
(PW3), Mahesh (PW2), Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6), it is established<\/p>\n
that injuries on the body of deceased persons were caused by the<\/p>\n
accused persons and as a result of injuries they had died. Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer Vivek Asthana (PW9) had conducted the inquest proceedings and<\/p>\n
recorded the injuries found on the body of deceased persons in inquest
\n                                    (9)                Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
memo Ex. P\/3 and Ex. P\/4. He also recorded first informaton report Ex.<\/p>\n
P\/2 and merg report Ex. P\/24 in that regard. It was thus clearly<\/p>\n
established that deceased Ramkishore Dubey and Kusum Dubey died of<\/p>\n
injuries sustained by them and that their death was homicidal in nature.<\/p>\n
12)   Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the<\/p>\n
trial Court committed error in placing reliance on the evidence of eye<\/p>\n
witnesses, who were close relatives and family members of the deceased.<\/p>\n
No independent witness was adduced in the case.        He also submitted<\/p>\n
that the incident had occurred suddenly, therefore, it could not be held<\/p>\n
that the appellants had any motive or intention to commit murder of the<\/p>\n
deceased persons. As such, their conviction under Section 302\/149 of<\/p>\n
the Indian Penal Code was not justified. Learned counsel for the State,<\/p>\n
on the other hand, justified and supported the impugned judgment of<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence of appellants.\n<\/p>\n
13)   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
14)   We have carefully considered the evidence, circumstances and the<\/p>\n
probabilities of the case.   We have also gone through the judgment<\/p>\n
under appeal with the help of both the learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
15)   It is true that no independent witness has been examined in the<\/p>\n
case, but merely on that count the evidence of relative witnesses cannot<\/p>\n
be discarded altogether in the absence of very cogent reason.       It has<\/p>\n
been held by the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.- AIR<\/p>\n
2009 SC 1 that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be<\/p>\n
treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown
\n                                    (10)                 Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
when a plea of partialty is raised to show that the witnesses had reason<\/p>\n
to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.   In the instant<\/p>\n
case, it is significant to note that Nirmal (PW3), Naveen (PW6) and Jyoti<\/p>\n
(PW5) are the      sons and daughter of deceased persons and their<\/p>\n
presence at the place of occurrence stands established from the injuries<\/p>\n
found on their bodies which were sustained by them in the same<\/p>\n
incident.\n<\/p>\n
16)   Nirmal (PW3), the son of deceased deposed that he knew all the<\/p>\n
accused persons.    At about 7 O’ clock in the morning, while he was<\/p>\n
studying, his father Ramkishore left for the market. Hearing hue and cry,<\/p>\n
his mother went out of the house.         He saw all the accused persons<\/p>\n
standing there with weapons. Om Prakash (dead) had Farsa, Uma Dutt<\/p>\n
had Luhanji, Bindu had Iron Rod, Amit had Gidia, Sumit (juvenile) had<\/p>\n
Lathi and Vishakha Bai had Lathi. All these persons assaulted to his<\/p>\n
father and mother. Both of them suffered injuries on their hands and<\/p>\n
other parts of the body. When he, his brother Naveen and Sister Jyoti<\/p>\n
went there to rescue them, they also assaulted them. Umadutt with his<\/p>\n
Luhangi and Bindu with Iron Rod assaulted him. Bholaram assaulted his<\/p>\n
sister. He, Naveen and Jyoti suffered injuries. His Uncles Mahesh Prasad<\/p>\n
and Rambharose also came at the spot. His mother and father died at<\/p>\n
the spot. He along with his uncle and sister went to police station and<\/p>\n
lodged the report Ex. P\/2.\n<\/p>\n
17)   Evidence of Nirmal (PW3) finds corroboration from the evidence of<\/p>\n
Jyoti (PW5), Naveen (PW6) and Mahesh (PW2). Reiterating the same
\n                                   (11)                 Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
story, Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) deposed that in the morning at<\/p>\n
about 7 A.M., when their father was going to market Om Prakash along<\/p>\n
with other accused persons came near their house armed with weapons<\/p>\n
and assaulted their father. Assailants were armed with Farsa, Luhangi,<\/p>\n
Iron Rod, Lathi and Gidia. Vishakha was also armed with a Lathi. When<\/p>\n
their mother went to save their father, all of them assaulted to her also.<\/p>\n
Jyoti deposed that when she, Nirmal and Naveen tried to save their<\/p>\n
parents, they were also assaulted. Bholaram dealt a Lathi blow on her<\/p>\n
leg. Om Prakash with Farsa, Umdadutt with Luhangi, Bindu with Iron<\/p>\n
Rod and Vishakha by Lathi assaulted to Naveen. Bholaram also assaulted<\/p>\n
to Nirmal. Her parents died at the spot. Hearing hue and cry, her uncles<\/p>\n
Rambharose and Mahesh also reached at the spot.<\/p>\n
18)   Mahesh Prasad (PW2) deposed that he knew all the accused<\/p>\n
persons. In the morning when he heard noise of some quarrel, he went<\/p>\n
out of his house and saw Ramkioshore Dubey lying on the ground and<\/p>\n
accused persons assaulting him with Lathi, Farsa, Luhangi, etc. Some of<\/p>\n
the accused persons were also beating Kusum Dubey, the wife of<\/p>\n
Ramkioshore Dubey and Naveen Dubey.          Victims were smeared with<\/p>\n
blood. When Jyoti and Nirmal came out of their house to save them,<\/p>\n
they were also assaulted.\n<\/p>\n
19)   All the aforesaid eye witnesses were subjected to a lengthy cross<\/p>\n
examination, but they remained firm and nothing could be elicited out<\/p>\n
from their evidence.     The discrapencies and contradictions in their<\/p>\n
evidence pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants were not of
\n                                      (12)                Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
substantial nature and were merely the matter of details. Presence of<\/p>\n
Nirmal (PW3), Jyoti (PW5) and Naveen (PW6) is further reinforced by the<\/p>\n
injuries found on their bodies.\n<\/p>\n
20)   Dr. V.V.Deshmukh (PW8) examined the injuries of Nirmal, Jyoti<\/p>\n
and Naveen. He found following injuries on their bodies:<\/p>\n
      Injuries of Nirmal:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)     Swelling 2\" x 2\" on left side back,\n\n      (ii)    swelling 2\" x 3\" on right hand elbow,\n\n<\/pre>\n
      (iii)   swelling 1″ x 1 1\/2″ on left hand elbow,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iv)    swelling 2″ x 1″ above left ear and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (v)     swelling 2″ x 2″ on right knee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were<\/p>\n
simple in nature. His injury report is Ex. P\/21.<\/p>\n
      Injuries of Jyoti:-\n<\/p>\n
      (i)     Swelling 1\" x 3\" on left elbow,\n\n      (ii)    swelling 1\" x 3\" on left knee joint and\n\n      (iii)   swelling 2\"x 2\" on right shoulder.\n\n<\/pre>\n
      All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were<\/p>\n
simple in nature. Her injury report is Ex. P\/22.<\/p>\n
      Injuries of Naveen:-<\/p>\n
\n\n      (i)     Incised wound 1\" x 1\/4\" x 1\/4\" on right cheek,\n\n      (ii)    Incised wound 1 1\/4\" x 1\/4\" x 1\/4\" on right side of chin,\n\n      (iii)   swelling on left elbow joint,\n\n      (iv)    swelling on right shoulder joint and\n                                     (13)                  Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03\n\n<\/pre>\n
        (v)   swelling on back all over right scapular area.<\/p>\n
        Injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by some sharp edged object and<\/p>\n
other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Injuries nos. 3, 4<\/p>\n
and 5 were referred to X-ray examination.          Injury nos. 1 and 2 were<\/p>\n
simple in nature. His injury report is Ex. P\/23.<\/p>\n
21)     Evidence of Nirmal (PW3) finds further support from the first<\/p>\n
information report Ex. P\/2 lodged by him at police station Shahgunj<\/p>\n
within half an hour of the occurrence. As far as the presence of<\/p>\n
independent witness at the spot is concerned, Naveen (PW6) testified<\/p>\n
that after his parents died, 15-20 persons had reached from the<\/p>\n
neighbourhood. His uncles Mahesh and Rambharose had reached first.<\/p>\n
Mahesh (PW2) also stated that about 25-30 persons had come at the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence, but they had come late, after the occurrence was<\/p>\n
over.\n<\/p>\n
22)     We find no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that the evidence of aforesaid eye witnesses was not reliable<\/p>\n
because they did not specifically point out as to which injury of the<\/p>\n
deceased persons was caused by whom.               From the evidence of Dr.<\/p>\n
R.K.Bhatnagar (PW4), who performed the postmortem examination of<\/p>\n
the bodies of deceased persons, it is apparent that Ramkishore sustained<\/p>\n
19 injuries on his body.    Injury no. 5 were contusions which were 8 in<\/p>\n
number. Thus, total number of his injuries was 26 and deceased Kusum<\/p>\n
Dubey had sustained 19 injuries on her body.           The assailaints   were<\/p>\n
seven in number.       Witnesses had also suffered injuries in the same
\n                                    (14)                Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
incident, therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be expected from the<\/p>\n
witnesses to describe that who caused which injury to victims.<\/p>\n
23)   It is true that no specific evidence in respect of motive for the<\/p>\n
occurrence has been adduced by the proscution, but where there is direct<\/p>\n
evidence of the incident, the absence of prove of motive cannot be held<\/p>\n
to effect the veracity of the prosecution case. In Gurucharan Singh<\/p>\n
and another Vs. State of Punjab-AIR 1956 SC 460 the Apex Court<\/p>\n
observed that where the positive evidence against the accused is clear,<\/p>\n
cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance. It was<\/p>\n
again observed by the Apex Court in Narayan Nathu Naik Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra-AIR 1971 SC 1656, that the Court need not consider<\/p>\n
the question of motive, if it is satisfied that the evidence that accused<\/p>\n
was the assailant of victim is acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
24)   After closely scanning and scrutinizing the evidence on record, we<\/p>\n
find that the evidence of eye witnesses adduced in the case is clear,<\/p>\n
cogent and reliable. Trial Court has committed no error in placing implicit<\/p>\n
reliance on their evidence in holding the appellants guilty of causing<\/p>\n
death of two deceased persons namely Ramkishore Dubey and Smt.<\/p>\n
Kusum Dubey. Their conviction under Sections 147, 148, 323\/149 and<\/p>\n
324\/149 of the Indian Penal Code is also justified.<\/p>\n
25)   We find no substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that the intention of the appellants was not to commit murder<\/p>\n
of the deceased persons.       It has been amply established that the<\/p>\n
appellants caused in all about 45 injuries to deceased persons. There
\n                                    (15)                    Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03<\/p>\n
were injuries on the vital parts like head and chest resulting in fractures<\/p>\n
of many bones. They caused death of Smt. Kusum Dubey when she tried<\/p>\n
to rescue her husband and they caused injuries to their children also<\/p>\n
when they made attempt to save their parents.                The conduct of<\/p>\n
appellants clearly indicated that they caused death of deceased persons<\/p>\n
with the intention of committing their murder. Their conviction by the<\/p>\n
trial Court under Section 302\/149 IPC is, therefore, affirmed.<\/p>\n
26)   In view of the above, in our opinion, no grounds have been made<\/p>\n
out for interference. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
      (RAKESH SAKSENA)                               (T.K.KAUSHAL)\n          JUDGE                                          JUDGE\n\nAD\/\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 (1) Cr.Appeal No. 265\/03 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE T.K.KAUSHAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 265\/2003 APPELLANTS: 1. Umadutt S\/o Bholeram, aged about 26 years, 2. Bindu @ Arvind S\/o Bholeram, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-04T08:29:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T08:29:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3046,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T08:29:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-04T08:29:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T08:29:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011"},"wordCount":3046,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011","name":"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T08:29:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/uma-dutt-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Uma Dutt vs The State Of M.P on 27 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}