Madhya Pradesh Murder Case: Supreme Court Modifies Conviction Under IPC Section 326/149

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on an appeal challenging the conviction of multiple accused in a murder case from Madhya Pradesh. The case, Viram @ Virma vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, involved an incident from 1995 where a group of individuals attacked a man named Babulal Lodha and other victims with weapons, resulting in serious injuries and death.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on August 19, 1995, when an altercation between the deceased and the accused escalated into a violent attack. The accused, numbering more than 20, were armed with farsa (axes), lathis (sticks), spears, and swords. They attacked Babulal Lodha and several others, causing grievous injuries.

Following the attack, Solal, son of Girdhari (PW-10), filed an FIR against the accused at Police Station Kumbhraj, Guna, Madhya Pradesh. The prosecution presented 14 witnesses who testified about the violent attack.

Charges Against the Accused

The accused were charged under the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

Section 302/149 IPC: Murder
Section 325/149 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
Section 324/149 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
Section 323/149 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt

Trial Court’s Findings

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302/149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The court relied on the testimony of Shankarlal (PW-11), who was an eyewitness to the attack on Babulal. The trial court noted that the statements of other injured witnesses, including Rodibai (PW-1), Shantibai (PW-2), and Bala Bux (PW-7), were consistent with the medical evidence.

High Court’s Ruling

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the conviction, stating that the minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not weaken the prosecution’s case. The court ruled that the attack on Babulal was clearly established, and the presence of multiple attackers justified the application of Section 149 IPC (unlawful assembly).

Arguments by the Petitioners

The accused challenged their conviction in the Supreme Court, arguing that:

There were contradictions between the eyewitness testimonies and the medical evidence.
Only one witness (PW-11) saw the attack, while others arrived later.
The fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, while the accused were carrying sharp weapons.
The conviction under Section 302/149 was too severe, and an alternate conviction under Section 326/149 (grievous hurt) should be considered.

State’s Arguments

The prosecution countered that:

Shankarlal (PW-11) directly saw the accused attacking Babulal.
The other injured witnesses corroborated the attack and identified the accused.
Minor discrepancies in testimonies did not justify overturning the conviction.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that Shankarlal (PW-11) clearly identified the accused and described how Babulal was assaulted. However, the Court found a contradiction between the weapons described by witnesses and the medical evidence.

Key Observations:

Dr. A.D. Bhindurkar (PW-13) examined Babulal and found a fatal head injury caused by a hard and blunt object.
The accused were said to have attacked with sharp weapons like swords, farsas, and spears, but the injuries did not match.
The injury reports did not confirm the use of the weapons claimed by the prosecution.

Based on these inconsistencies, the Court ruled that conviction under Section 302/149 IPC was not justified. However, it found enough evidence to convict the accused under Section 326/149 IPC (grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon).

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the conviction as follows:

Instead of life imprisonment, the accused were sentenced to seven years under Section 326/149 IPC.
Their convictions under Sections 325/149, 324/149, and 323/149 IPC were upheld.
The Supreme Court ruled:

“The fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon. There is no corresponding injury that matches the sharp weapons allegedly used by the accused. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302/149 is not justified.”

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling establishes an important legal precedent:

Medical evidence must align with eyewitness testimony for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Discrepancies in weapon use can affect murder convictions but do not necessarily lead to acquittal.
Section 149 IPC remains a valid charge in cases of unlawful assembly, even if the specific charge is reduced.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides a balanced approach to criminal jurisprudence by ensuring that convictions match the available evidence. By modifying the charge from murder to grievous hurt, the Court upheld the principles of fairness while acknowledging the severity of the attack.

Petitioner Name: Viram @ Virma.
Respondent Name: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice B. V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Guna, Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: viram-@-virma-vs-the-state-of-madhya-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-11-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category