State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Goloo Raikwar & Ors

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Goloo Raikwar & Ors

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Goloo Raikwar & Ors

In The Supreme Court of India

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Criminal Appeal No. 185 Of 2016

(@ SLP (CRL.) NO. 967 OF 2015)

Nagappan, J.



Deceased Hari Choudhary & Kalu Choudhary were going to eat betel and on their way the accused (All 5) attacked both of them by hurling country bomb & with weapons. Kalu Choudhary informed Hari’s brother wherein they carried the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead. The doctor who performed autopsy clearly stated that the cause of the death was excessive hemorrhage resulting out of brutal injury on the knee. The case was registered for the offences under sec. 302 IPC & Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the sec. 302 and acquitted them for the offence under Prevention of Atrocities Act wherein, the Court sentenced each of them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of RS. 1000/- each in default to undergo one-month simple imprisonment for the charge of murder. At the same time, the Trial Court acquitted one of the accused. Challenging the order, the appeal was made before the High Court by the accused. The High Court altered the conviction & sentence bringing it under sec. 304 Part I IPC and reducing their sentence from life sentence to imprisonment for 10 years.


When the injury does not inflict on a vital part of the body where the person still dies, can it still be considered as an intention to commit murder or just death causing from negligence?

Approach of the Supreme Court & the Judgment:

The Court stated the fact that the accused hurled country-made bombs and also the injuries caused were intentional and were sufficient to cause death. The reference was made to State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Anr. (1976 4 CC 382) wherein the Court dealt with the similar situation. The Court further stated that the High Court was at fault while altering the conviction. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restore the judgment of the Trial Court where the accused were convicted of imprisonment for life. Thus, the court has directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court to serve out the remaining sentence.

About The Author

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *