University Institute of Legal

Studies

Supervised by: Compiled by:

Dr. Pushpinder Kaur -Nikita

-B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

-5th Semester

-Roll no.-91/14
 Indian Penal Code

Comments on the case

Ramraj Shukla v State Of Madhya Pradesh
( 1992 Cri.L.J 1233)
 Acknowledgement

This project of Indian Penal Code on the case Ramraj Shukla v State of
Madhya Pradesh 1992 Criminal Law Journal 1233 is a sincere effort by me. It
has been prepared by me strictly according to the guidelines issued by Punjab
University, Chandigarh.

I am thankful to my subject teacher Dr. Pushpinder whose constant support

and guidance encouraged me to prepare this project. I hope this project would
come up to the soaring expectations of my mentors and its readers.
 Table Of Contents

1. Facts of the Case

2. Acts and rules applied

3. Contentions of the parties

4. Issues discussed in the case

5. Arguments Advanced

6. Conclusion

7. Critical Analysis
 Facts of the case
1. In the present case It is alleged that the landed property Hazaria Bund was
owned by the ancestors of deceased (Ramesh Kumar) and the accused (Ramraj).

2. On the date of incident the deceased Ramesh Kumar began ploughing in one
corner of said Hazaria Bund, and cultivation on the other part of the Hazaria Bund
was being done by accused persons.

3. The two labourers i.e. Sukarta and Dashrath conducted the ploughing on behalf
of deceased Ramesh Kumar while accused Ramraj himself and some other
persons were conducting ploughing on the other part of the said Hazaria Bund.

4. In the evening after unyoking the bullocks the labourers and Ramesh Kumar
retired and were going to their respective houses. Meanwhile Ramraj, his father
Ramswaroop and brother Deoraj armed with lathis, came on the spot and
enquired why the deceased had cultivated the land in their possession.

5. Deceased claimed his share in the Hazaria Bund. Thereafter, all of them
assaulted deceased Ramesh Kumar, caused various injuries on head and other
parts of the body of Ramesh Kumar who fell down.

6. On hearing the alarm some persons came there. Accused persons then left the
place and Ramesh Kumar was taken to hospital and reprt of the incident was
lodged by Sitaram son of Shiv Prasad Shukla at about 7.30 p.m. (one and half
hours after the incident).

7. The Deceased was examined by Assistant Surgeon Dr. S. P. Mishra (PW-10) who
submitted report Ex.P-14. Condition of Ramesh Kumar was serious and he was
sent to Medical College, Rewa and he died of injuries on 28-10-1984.
8. The matter was reported to the police Rewa and the information of the same
was sent to police Station Rampur Naikin.

9. The police Naikin Rampur filed challan against the present appellant, his father
Ramswaroop (since acquitted) and his brother Deoraj (whose case has been sent
to Juvenile Court, he being minor on the date of incident), with the allegation that
in furtherance of their common intention, they committed murder of Ramesh
Kumar resident of village Amdad, P.S. Naikin on 23-10-1984 at about 6.00 p.m. in
village Amdad, P.S. Naikin.
 Acts and rules applied
Section 302. Punishment for murder.-Whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention
of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by
him alone.

Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.-

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with
1
[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death,

Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.

Section 307. Attempt to murder- Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that caused death, he would be
guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to
any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 2[imprisonment for life], or
to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

1
Subs. By Act 26 of 1955,sec. 117 and Sch., for transportation for life (w.e.f. 1-1-1956).

2
Subs. By Act 26 of 1955,sec. 117 and Sch., for transportation for life (w.e.f. 1-1-1956).
Attempts by life convicts- 3 [When any person offending under this section is
under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death.]

3
Ins. By Act 27 of 1870, sec. 11

.
 Contentions of the Parties
Autopsy on the body of Ramesh Kumar was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
who found following injuries :

(i) Surgical stitch wound over left occipital region 3" linear fracture 2" long parallel
to, each other present over left parietal to temporal region.

(ii) Comminuted fracture bone broken into 7 pieces and pierced to brain (middle
cranal fossa)

(iii) laceration at brain middle cranial fossa

(iv) sub-dural hametoma 6 cm x 6 cm left occipital region

(v) Laceration of brain 2" x 2" x 2" deep (middle cranial fossa).

(vi) Fissured fracture over skull stratching from left ear to right ear about 23 cm
long.

(vii) Extra dural hametoma big size present over back of the head.

(viii) Brain congested.

The surgical stitches described by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh further stands
corroborated from the statement of PW 10 Dr. S. P. Mishra.

On the basis of the report of Dr. S. P. Mishra, earlier the case was registered
under Section 307/34 of Penal Code. Later it was converted into one
under Section 302/34 of IPC Investigation in the matter was conducted by J. P.
Chhari. He inspected the spot, got prepared the map, bloodstained clothes of
deceased were seized from Sitaram, accused Ramraj and Ramswaroop were taken
into custody. One lathi was seized from Ramraj, one axe was seized from
Ramswaroop.

After investigation challan was filed against the accused persons. The accused
persons abjured the guilt and pleaded that Ramesh Kumar illegally took
possession of the land and on protest being made by Ramraj, caused injuries to
him.
 Arguments Advanced
In the memorandum of appeal and during the course of argument following
points of fact were raised by counsel for the appellants:--

(i) There is improvement in the first information report and the case diary
statements; therefore, the prosecution story is not reliable;

(ii) Witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, one hostile and inform witness
cannot be corroborated by other infirm and hostile witness;

(iii) Alleged melee took place in the field;

(iv) Injuries found on the person of accused Ramraj have not been explained and,
therefore, he is entitled for benefit of right to private defence.

As against it learned counsel for the State submitted that the deceased was
assaulted after he retired from the field and the assault was made not to protect
the possession but to retaliate the action of the deceased. Even if it is presumed
that injuries were caused by the deceased, that must be taken to have been
caused during the assault on him by the accused persons.

Prosecution examined Sitaram, Dashrath, Ramsumiran, Sukurta, Pratima Devi,

Dhan-wan, Bhura, Ravinandan Singh, J. P. Chhari, Dr. Section P. Mishra,
Shyamsunder Sharma, Kashi Prasad, Ram Prasad Sharma, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh,
and Kamta Prasad Tiwari.

* Sitaram has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that he was
related to the deceased and the accused both. Accused Ramraj is related to him
as uncle while Ramesh Kumar was related to him as cousin. He stated in his
statement that cultivation over the land was being done for the whole day and in
the evening after the ploughs were unyoked and bullocks were being brought
home, accused persons came there armed with lathi and asked why the deceased
had cultivated the land of their possession. On deceased's asserting his share and
claim over the land, he was attacked by the accused persons. He has further
stated that Ramraj and Deoraj both of them attacked the deceased Ramesh
Kumar. Accused Ramraj caused injuries on the head. He also stated about the
lodging of first information report in police station Rampur Naikin. In the FIR he
stated that Ramraj and Deoraj assaulted the deceased at the instance and
direction of Ramswaroop, but during cross-examination he denied the suggestion
and, therefore, he was declared hostile. Excepting the abetment of offence by
Ramswaroop, on all other facts this witness has supported the prosecution and
the first information report. This witness cannot be treated to be wholly reliable.
He will be deemed to be partly reliable.

* PW 2 Dashrath has corroborated the first part of the story that a part of Hazaria
Bund was being ploughed by him and Sukerta at the instance of deceased Ramesh
Kumar and after unyoking the bulls from plough he left the field and thereafter he
heard the alarm raised by deceased. He has further stated that he saw accused
Ramraj and Deoraj assaulting the deceased. He has not supported the presence of
Ramswaroop and, therefore, he has also been declared hostile.

Sukarta has also stated that in the evening after they had finished the cultivation
work and were returning home along with the bullocks as soon as the deceased
reached the bund along with the bulls, accused Ramraj and Deoraj came on the
spot armed with lathi and started assaulting the deceased. Thereafter other
persons of the village came there and by that time the accused left the place. This
witness has also not supported the fact of presence of Ramswaroop and
therefore, he has also been declared hostile.

Ramsumiran has corroborated the version of Sukarta to the extent that Sukarta
immediately disclosed to him that accused Ramraj and his younger brother Deoraj
had assaulted the deceased Ramesh Kumar. According to this witness deceased
Ramesh is brother's son of Ramswaroop who is father of the accused. There was a
partition of movable property, but the immovable property was not partitioned
by metes and bounds. He has further stated that in the disputed field Hazaria
Bund one portion was being ploughed by accused persons and the other portion
was ploughed by deceased Ramesh Kumar, and that the incident had taken place
in the evening. He has further stated about the presence of injury on the body of
the deceased, taking of him to the hospital. This witness is related to both the
parties and has rightly been believed by the learned Sessions Judge.

*All the eye-witnesses i.e. Sitaram, Dashrath, Sukarta have been declared hostile
only on the ground that they have not supported the presence of Ramswaroop at
the place of incident. Therefore the learned counsel for appellant submitted that
one hostile witness cannot corroborate the other hostile witness; therefore, the
prosecution story cannot be accepted to be true.

Sitaram has lodged the FIR and in that FIR he has implicated Ramswaroop as
well. However, during his statement on oath in the Court he did not name
Ramswaroop, as such he was declared hostile to that extent only. On the basis of
this learned counsel for appellant submitted that since Sitaram has resiled from
his own report and improved the story, therefore, his version cannot be relied
upon. As observed earlier, if the witness otherwise appears to be truthful but
declared hostile for not naming Ramswaroop, his evidence cannot be wholly
discarded.

*Learned counsel thereafter submitted that the accused persons were in

possession of the Hazaria Bund and the deceased Ramesh Kumar committed
criminal trespass while cultivating the land and, therefore, they were justified in
ousting him and in preventing him from taking illegal possession. No doubt, the
law gives a right for protection of one's person and property and thereby the
person is entitled to protect one's own possession. But law does not extend that
right if there is sufficient time for taking recourse to the legal remedies and
approaching the authorities. It further does not permit a right of retaliation. In
this case from the evidences discussed earlier it has been proved that deceased
Ramesh Kumar along with two labourers cultivated one part of the land for the
whole day. The accused persons were cultivating the same Hazaria Bund in the
other corner. They knew that the deceased was cultivating through his labourers.
But they did not take any immediate action. It was in the evening, when Ramesh
Kumar and his labourers had retired and were proceeding towards their
respective houses that these accused persons attacked him. This action of the
accused persons was not for protection of their possession but for retaliation.
Under these circumstances the accused had no right of causing injuries to the
deceased.

*Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the accused had also
received injuries on his person and those injuries have not been explained and the
accused is, therefore, entitled for benefit of the same. He also referred a case
reported in Victor alias Kalco v. State4 in support of his contention. He stated that
I am in agreement with the law stated therein. In that case, the deceased was a
bully, he was armed, and the accused had reasonable apprehension of attack; he
therefore acted in self-defence and caused injuries. Such is not the case here.

* Learned counsel thereafter referred a case reported in Munshiram v. Delhi

Administration5. He stated that in that case the accused persons were in peaceful
possession of the property on the basis of a sale-certificate issued by the Court.
The deceased party committed trespass and tried to cultivate the land. Accused
persons protected their possession by using force. But in the instant case the
deceased had already retired after ploughing the land. The accused did not object
while the land was being cultivated.

4
1966 Cri LJ 841: 1966 JLJ 587 (C.N. 115)

5
1968 Cri LJ 806: AIR 1968 SC 702
* Learned counsel for the appellant has then referred to a case reported in Puran
Singh v. State of Punjab6. That was a case where the complainant party tried to
re-enter the land and destroy the crop grown by the accused, and therefore, the
accused persons were taken to be in settled possession and were held to be
entitled to right of self-defence. The attack in the case in hand was not for ousting
deceased Ramesh Kumar but in retaliation after he had retired. He also referred
to a case reported in State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey7In that case the assembly of
persons was with common object of preventing theft of their property exercising
right of self-defence and in that process some unknown accused persons
exceeded right of self-defence and, therefore the accused persons were given the
benefit of it.

6
1975 Cri LJ 1479: AIR 1975 SC 1674

7
AIR 1970 SC 27: 1970 Cri LJ 5.
 Conclusion
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it can very well be accepted
that accused Ramraj received injuries during that altercation and preponderance
of probability shows that the deceased must have caused those injuries. But in
this case the accused along with his brother Deoraj (whose case has been referred
to Juvenile Court) attacked the deceased in retaliation and, therefore, accused
had no right of private defence as against the deceased, to protect himself. He
was carrying bullocks and as a farmer he must have been carrying some sticks and
it appears that the injuries to the accused have been caused by the deceased
during assault by the accused/ appellant and his brother.

Further facts and circumstances of the also stipulates that accused and his
brother came prepared on the spot while the deceased was simply retreating
home and was carrying the bullocks, and for this reason also accused is not
entitled to the benefit of right to private defence or self-protection. Learned
Sessions Judge has held that the accused exceeded in right of self-defence and as
such convicted him under Section 304, Part II, Penal Code. In the opinion of this
Court the accused was not entitled for self-defence; however, there is no appeal
by the State as such no interference can be made in that finding. In the opinion of
this Court, the accused had no right of self-defence. In any way learned trial Court
has taken it to be a case of exceeding in right of self-defence

As a consequence the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Conviction and

sentence of the appellant/accused is maintained. Appellant is on bail, he is
directed to surrender before the process of law to serve out remaining part of the
sentence.
 Critical Appraisal
The honorable court in this case gave very sound judgment. The facts of the
case clearly specified that both the parties were co owners of the said Hazari
bund land. The deceased was cultivating the other part of the land with
Sukarta and Dashrath. The accused, Ramswaroop and Deoraj knew this but still
they didnt take any action to stop the deceased. The cultivation over the land
was being done for the whole day. In the evening when ploughs were unyoked
and bullocks were being brought home, accused persons came there armed
with lathis and axe and asked deceased why he cultivated the land. He was
attacked by the accused on asserting his claim on the said land. This clearly
shows that the accused didnt act in right to protection of person and
property. He just retaliated . He was having enough time for taking recourse to
the legal remedies and approaching the authorities. Therefore the judgment
given by the court is very apt.
 Bibliography

*Gaur, K.D. Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing, fifth
edition 2015

Webliography
*http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1991361/

*googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.lawyerservices.in/Ramraj-Shukla-
Verses-State-Of-MP-1991-10-21&ei=xHcpl88X&Ic=en-
IN&s=1&m=56&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1479542058&sig=AF9NedIS1La5J
eiCzPM1ksVxCs20gJBVIA
 LATEST CASES.
1. Akhilesh Kumar Sinha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. On 10 january, 2002

In this case writ applications have been filed for common cause as the writ
petitioners have been terminated from their services and the facts involved in
these writ applications are identical, therefore, they have been heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.

A common argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners challenging

the orders of termination of the petitioners contending that the orders of
termination are arbitrary unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch
that the petitioners have worked under the respondents for several years after
being validely appointed on Class IV posts.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state stating therein that
though the petitioners contained under the respondents for some time. On Class
IV posts, they were not appointed after following the provisions of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution inasmuch as that the posts were not advertised and their
services, therefore, were liable to be terminated as such appointments were ab
initio void.

From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioners were appointed
in the eighties by respondents concerned on Class IV posts against a scale of Rs.
350-450 on temporary basis and their services were extended from time to time
till passing of the orders impugned. It further appears that the writ petitioners
continued under the respondents for pretty long time and they performed their
duties satisfactorily and instead absorbing them permanently, they have been
terminated.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners, some how or the other, continued under
the respondents for more than ten years and were getting scale. There is nothing
in the order impugned or in the counter-affidavit to show that the services of the
petitioners were found unsatisfactory and at any point of time they
misrepresented the facts for obtaining the appointment letters nor they played
fraud upon the respondents in doing so. Since petitioners continued on Class IV
posts against the respondents and were getting scale for several years, in my
opinion, equity demands that they should not be terminated. Even assuming that
there were certain irregularities in engagement of the petitioners on temporary
basis, that could have been rectified immediately after their
appointment/engagement, but it appears that the period of engagement was
extended from time to time giving legitimate expectations to the petitioners that
their services have been regularised. Certain orders passed by this Court in
similarly situated cases, have been brought on record. In C.W.J.C. No. 6586 of
1998 Sunil Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., this Court also set
aside the order of termination of the writ petitioner who is similarly situated to
these petitioners and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of
Sun/7 Kumar Singh (supra) was upheld by a Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 270
of 2000. Again in the case of Uday Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No.
15526 of 2001 similarly situated writ application was allowed and order of
termination was set aside holding that the termination of the services of the
petitioner was opposed to the principles of equity. In this connection, reference
may also be made to the case of Abhay Kumar Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors8.

For the reasons and discussion aforesaid, the orders terminating the services of
the petitioners, in my opinion, are not sustainable. In the result, these

8
2000 (2) P.L.J.R. 115
applications are allowed, orders impugned are set aside and the petitioners are
directed to be reinstated on their posts with all monetary benefits. This order,
however, shall not be precedent for other cases as it is being passed in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. No order as to costs.

2. Veeran & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.

*In this case the perennial question whether accused deserve to be convicted
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as
'I.P.C.) as held by the trial court and upheld by the High Court or whether the
conviction should be converted under Section 304 of the I.P.C. In the instant case,
eight accused were charged and prosecuted for commission of offences under
Section 147, 148, 302 or 302/149 and 325 of the IPC. After trial, giving benefit of
doubt, Suresh and Badelal, were acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadarwara,

* During the pendency of the appeal, Rewaram and Lakhan Lal died. Thus,
appeal in respect of these two accused stood abated. However, as regards the
remaining four accused, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Trial Court. Now, in this appeal, it is prayed before us to consider,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, whether, the four surviving
convicted Appellants Veeran, Onkar, Ganesh and Ashok deserve to be convicted
under Section 302/149, 147 and 148 of the IPC, who have been awarded life
imprisonment and one year each respectively for the commission of the aforesaid
offences or it deserves to be converted under Section 304 of the IPC. In this
case It was said, Mayabai, real sister of deceased Daddu had became pregnant on
account of accused Onkar and Ganesh. Panchayat was called to resolve the
dispute. Panchayat passed a resolution to outcaste deceased Daddu, Mayabai and
their family members. On account of this, they were in inimical terms.

*On 4.11.1992, Radhelal, uncle of deceased Daddu, was not in his house.
Deceased Daddu, and Narmada @ Narbadi were required to sleep at Radhelal's
house and hence were proceeding towards his house at about 8:00 p.m for this
purpose. Narmada @ Narbadi was brother-in-law of deceased Daddu. When they
reached the house of Radhelal, wives of accused Veeran, Onkar and Rewaram
started abusing Crl.A @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8847 of 2009 .... (contd.) them saying that
these persons had lost their reputation because of the misconduct committed by
PW-6 - Mayabai, sister of deceased Daddu, after which Daddu (deceased) asked
the ladies not to abuse them. At that time accused Veeran, Onkar and Rewaram
came out from their house but went back to their respective houses. However,
before leaving they challenged deceased Daddu, to come out of the house. Daddu
came out of his house and at that point of time, accused Lakhan, Ashok and
Ganesh also came to the spot armed with Gandasa, Farsa and Lathis. etc. All of
them told Daddu that he was crossing all limits and he should behave in proper
and orderly manner. After some altercation, they started beating Daddu
(deceased) with the weapons they were carrying.

* It is said that Veeran caused injuries on the head of Daddu. On account of

injuries sustained by Daddu, he fell down. Even though, Narmada @ Narbadi
raised protest but they did not stop. Mayabai , Rambai and Trivenibai (sisters of
deceased Daddu), Shiv Prasad and Kailash , (cousin of deceased) of the same
village came to intervene but the accused persons did not stop. After inflicting
injuries on Daddu, thinking him to be dead, accused left the spot. Narmada @
Narbadi and Mayabai also sustained injuries as they were trying to intervene.
Daddu was then taken in a bullock cart to Police Station, Gotetoriya, Narsinghpur
by Mayabai and others. FIR was lodged by Mayabai on 4.11.92 at 23.30 Hrs.
naming all the eight accused in the same and giving details of the injuries caused
by each one of Crl.A @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.8847 of 2009 .... (contd.) them, with the
weapons they were carrying. Thereafter, Daddu was taken to Civil Hospital,
Gadarwara but before any medical help could be provided to him, he was
declared `brought dead' by the Doctors attending on him.

*In this case it appeared that the death caused by the accused was not
premeditated, accused had no common intention to cause death of deceased, the
injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused his
death, hence the instant case falls under the Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 of
IPC. In the light of the foregoing discussion, appeal is allowed in part. Appellant
No. 1, Veeran is held guilty for commission of offences under Section 304 Part I
/149 and under Section 147, 148 of the IPC and awarded the sentence already
undergone whereas others are held guilty for commission of offences under
Section 323/149, 147 & 148 of the I.P.C. and awarded the sentences already
undergone. The Appellants be thus, released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.

Table of cases

*(Victor alias Kalco v. State) 1966 Cri LJ 841: 1966 JLJ 587 (C.N. 115)

*( Munshiram v. Delhi Administration) 1968 Cri LJ 806: AIR 1968 SC 702.

*(Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab) 1975 Cri LJ 1479: AIR 1975 SC 1674.

*(State of Bihar v. Nathu Pandey) AIR 1970 SC 27: 1970 Cri LJ 5.