GHAPOO YADAV vs STATE OF MP Case Summary (2003 SC)

GHAPOO YADAV vs STATE OF MP Case Summary (2003 SC)

GHAPOO YADAV vs STATE OF MP Case gave clarity of exception 4 to section 300 which 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.

BENCH

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT

RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Section 300, 302, 307, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code

FACTS OF THE CASE

  • There are 7 people involved in the case, i.e., Lekharam and Gopal (‘the deceased’) were sons of Ramlal. Accused Ghapoo Yadav is the father of accused Janku, Kewal, and Mangal Singh. The deceased, witness, accused belong to the same village and there was a disputed land between them. On the request of Ramlal, father of the deceased.
  • The measurement of the disputed land was done by Revenue Authority. And the disputed land owned by Ramlal came out to be a land that belonged to accused Mangal Singh, and over the said land, a berry tree existed.
  • Now Ramlal was parted with the tree as the said land no longer belongs to him. Said tree was cut by the family members of Ramlal a day before the accident for which the deceased had altercations as he does not want the tree to be cut down, the accused persons and the deceased have altercations and scuffles, and the accused person assaulted the deceased which resulted in a fracture of a leg bone and one hand.
  • When Ramlal and Gopal come to save the deceased, the accused ran towards them threateningly and they both fled away. After some time, they came back to save the accused with some other villagers; they saw the accused who was rarely breathing takes him to the hospital for a medical emergency and his checkup. The accused acquired 7 injuries out of which only one came out to be life-threatening. But unfortunately, the accused died at 2.00 AM on 10-06-1986, and a dying declaration was recorded, and later on, his intimidation of death was sent to the police station.
  • A case was filed against the accused under section 307, which was later converted into section 302. And charge-sheer was filed indicating the alleged commission of offenses punishable under section 147, 148, and 302 read with section 149 of IPC.

Buy Best Book of IPC by K.D. Gaur (Latest Edition)

ISSUES

  • Whether the offense committed by the accused comes under section 302 murder?
  • Whether the act was done by the accused is premeditated or not? 

RATIO DECIDENDI

The trial was held in session court and the charges against the accused were framed under section 307 IPC, which was later converted in sections 148 and 302 read with section 149 of IPC.

But the accused person pleaded the charges were wrong. Apart from the witnesses, the court hears the case based on facts that the deceased and the accused first had a verbal quarrel and then in the heat of the moment they had a sudden fight and, in the provocation, the accused beats the deceased and he got 7 injuries out of which only one was sufficient to take his life.

After the injuries were inflicted, the injured has fallen, but there was no material to show that thereafter any injury was inflicted when he was in a helpless condition. The Assaults were made at random. It was not a premeditated murder. It is important that which party had first assaulted or who gives provocation. To support the appeal, learned counsel conceded that if the factual findings as recorded are affirmed, then sections 148 and 149 would have application.

Buy IPC Bare Act (Latest Edition) 

The learned counsel held that this case comes under Exception 4 of section 300, which says that sudden fight means when the fight was unexpected or not premeditated, there was no intention of eighter of the parties to cause death. There is a case similar to this which came to my notice, i.e., Sukhbir Singh, v. State of Haryana.

DECISION

After hearing the Honorable court held that section 304 part I of IPC is applicable here and gave the accused a custodial sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation, and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation, respectively.

Found this case summary useful? Check out other landmark IPC Case summaries here >>> IPC Case Summaries

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Ritik Rastogi

Ritik Rastogi

See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!